RFC: kernel-modules in Fedora Extras

Thorsten Leemhuis fedora at leemhuis.info
Fri Jan 6 12:06:58 UTC 2006


Am Freitag, den 06.01.2006, 11:09 +0000 schrieb David Woodhouse:
> On Fri, 2006-01-06 at 11:30 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > If a kernel module is only of interest for some of those archs of
> > course feel free to list only those.
> 
> I'd still like to see a policy of having to have a bug filed for any
> arch exclusion -- and not just for kernel modules. 

We have such a one already, that of course also applies to kernel
modules:

http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageReviewGuidelines

- MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on
an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec
in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch needs to have a
bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not
compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number should then be
placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. New
packages will not have bugzilla entries during the review process, so
they should put this description in the comment until the package is
approved, then file the bugzilla entry, and replace the long explanation
with the bug number.

> Even if it's a
> long-term reason like 'lilo doesn't make sense on ppc'.

Well, I don't think it's is necessary in this example because it's
unlikely that it will change. But if others agree on this we can even
try to enforce the rule in such situations (but I would create a
separate bug-account for this -- I don't want to see all those bugs that
probably never get fixed).

CU
thl
-- 
Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora at leemhuis.info>




More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list