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

Re: New tracker bugs for the use of ExcludeArchs in packages



Am Sonntag, den 29.01.2006, 13:51 +0100 schrieb Ralf Corsepius: 
> On Sun, 2006-01-29 at 13:29 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > Am Sonntag, den 29.01.2006, 13:32 +0100 schrieb Hans de Goede:
> > > Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> 
> > > What if the ExclusiveArch is not a bug but a feature, for example say a 
> > > userspace support tools for certain hardware only found on certain 
> > > archs? Then there is no problem to fix, should one then still file bugs?
> > 
> > In the past I would have said "no" but a lot of other packagers
> > disagreed and convinced me -- so the answer is a "yes" from me now.
> Please explain, I fail to understand the rationale.

I have no strong feeling about it. But to me it sound like a good idea
to have all ExludeArchs tracked in one place.

And we IMHO need bugzilla for the "ExludeArch because the packager was
not able to fix it" case where someone interested in x86_64 or ppc needs
to step up and fix the package for that arch.

> > Other people simply might not know that the package is "for certain
> > hardware only found on certain archs".
> It already is: Inside of the spec. All you do is adding administration
> overhead.

"All you do..."??? This paragraph is in the Package Review Guidelines
for a long time already:

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.

Nobody complained so loudly before -- why suddenly? All *I* requested is
to link this bug to the tracker bug -- that takes only 5 seconds per
bug. This whole discussion took much more time already.

"All Fesco does with this rule" would probably be more suitable -- so
okay, I you guys don't like that "MUST" rule then we can try to revisit
it and modify it. See the other mail to Hans I wrote some minutes ago
for details.
-- 
Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora leemhuis info>


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