On 01/08/11 11:10, Somebody in the thread at some point said: > On Sat, 2011-01-08 at 10:30 +0000, Andy Green wrote: >> On 01/08/11 09:54, Somebody in the thread at some point said: >>> On 01/08/2011 02:49 AM, Chris Tyler wrote: > >>> I would like to offer a counter-proposal - no package is accepted into >>> Fedora (ARM?) until it stops generating misalignment warnings. That way >> >> I think your proposal is a bad idea. > > FWIW I think you're talking at cross-purposes. There's no reason there > can't be a policy favoring stuff that doesn't generate miss-alignment > warnings (whether outright denial, or just some kind of part of package > reviews, and no reason this isn't a generic Fedora problem rather than > being ARM specific), have software like abrt pick it up, and still do a > fixup+warn setting in the kernel. You won't get silent breakage, and > you'll send a message that software needs to be fixed. As a "counter proposal" as it was introduced, instead of Chris' scheme, it's a bad idea. Having a policy that alignment faults should be avoided itself is fine, but it is not a replacement for the good assertive action made by changing the runtime policy. In fact I don't think we get to this point with so few fixups unless that was already the general policy not just here but in the upstreams. When the initscripts set the runtime action to be fixup + log, those faults will actually become more visible to everyone and help detection and removal of faults overall. -Andy _______________________________________________ arm mailing list arm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
