From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Michael S. Zick <minimod@morethan.org>
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 2009 13:58:06 -0600
Subject: [Buildroot] gcc-error with latest buildroot
In-Reply-To: <20091226183602.0f2debb4@surf>
References: <200912261427.53159.marco-glatz@web.de>
	<20091226183602.0f2debb4@surf>
Message-ID: <200912261358.09189.minimod@morethan.org>
List-Id: <buildroot.busybox.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: buildroot@busybox.net

On Sat December 26 2009, Thomas Petazzoni wrote:
> 
> (Note: of course this is something we should fix, but having gcc and
> associated development files on the target is an unusual setup, that's
> why it isn't widely tested)
> 

Say what?
How can you know that?

The request for a "test report" tag in the bug tracker has not yet
(as of a couple of hours ago) been acted on.

So unless you have some other means of tracking user submitted test 
reports how can you say that something is "not widely tested"?  you have
no way for people to report good/bad/pass/fail/broke.

Which means the maintainer(s) have no way to know what to mark as "tested",
"untested" or "broken" in a tagged release.

Or is it the Buildroot policy to throw all of the testing work onto the
back of the maintainer(s)?  Why should they be loaded up with that work?

Mike
> Cheers,
> 
> Thomas