On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 11:41 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On 08/20/2009 04:18 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 10:19:39AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > > >> Is it just me or are there some packages that seem to be eternally on > >> this list? beage/f-spot/tomboy never seem to go anywhere. > > > > They're eternally broken on ppc64. Mostly due to Mono being broken on ppc64. > > > It should be the opposite. Mono runs on ppc64 but some maintainers need > to update the ExcludeArch/ExclusiveArch that is preventing their > packages from being built on ppc64. Once those packages are fixed, > their dependent packages will be able to run as well. > > I'll go through and start updating packages to stop excluding ppc64 > since I'm tired of seeing mschwendt's report be ignored. However, > people who really care about mono need to step up and start taking care > of this stuff. I don't own or use any mono packages and I'm not happy > with the patent licenses so I don't want to keep working on these packages. > Is there a way to mass-file bug reports, so that each Mono package that currently do not build on PPC64 have a bug filed? (It's supposed to be there for any ExcludeArch, but this rule is often ignored). If maintainers are instructed to then block on the bug entries for their build requirements that are not currently available, then we can break from this situation where currently, a lot of maintainers (who don't have PPC64 hardware!) just give up rechecking. Regards, -- Michel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
