[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: FC4 Status and the addition of PPC arch

On Sat, 2005-05-07 at 23:49 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:

> > Why not normally omit the architecture there completely? Then nobody
> > can forget ppc ;-)
> > 
> > It seems in 95-98% of the cases the rebuilding was done (and should be
> > done) for all archs supported. For the other 2-5% we simply could
> > write:
> Seriously, we should be following a policy of requiring a bug number to
> be given as 'excuse' for any architecture exclusion.

I like this

> Even if it's a GCC bug which prevents a build on a given architecture,
> causing you to temporarily exclude that arch -- make _sure_ the bug is
> filed, and refer to it in your specfile along with the exclusion.

Agreed. If its not in Bugzilla, it doesn't exist

Now, this is to package maintainers, and not to Seth (who's already
doing an excellent job, albeit being overworked): if your build fails on
a certain arch and you ExcludeArch temporarily, it is /your/
responsibility to make sure the bug is filed

Michael has recently gone and done this in Bugzilla, and its mighty
helpful with tracking. At least I now know what bugs need fixing,
Colin Charles, http://www.bytebot.net/

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]