David Woodhouse (dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) said: > On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 15:45 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > > Egads. We had thought about this at one point, and it seems to have slipped > > our collective minds. Many things will be able to build, but some thing that > > require previously Extras packages in the buildroot will fail. I've setup a > > tracker bug to track these. If your package fails to build, please file a > > bug for it and block 'PPC64MissingDeps'. We will be trying to fix these > > asap, by bootstrapping and rebuilding ex-Extras packages to generate a ppc64 > > build of them. If at all possible, please do not ExcludeArch: ppc64. > > And if you do ExcludeArch: ppc64 remember that _ALL_ uses of > ExcludeArch: must have a corresponding bug filed, even if it's just an > explanation. And that bug must be on the corresponding ExcludeArch > tracker bug. I've created the tracker bug (#238953) for ppc64 -- aliased > 'FE-ExcludeArch-ppc64' for consistency with the others, which will all > probably drop the leading 'FE-' from the name at some point. > > We _really_ ought to start enforcing this "ExcludeArch must have bug" > rule in the build system. Well, anything that requires mono can probably piggyback on 238950, as opposed to having its own separate one. Bill -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
