On Tue, 2004-10-26 at 11:53 -0700, Roland McGrath wrote: > > People often turn off a package on some arch due to a temporary build > > failure, and then just leave it off for ages. I'd really like to see a > > policy of _having_ to have an open bug for such exclusions, in all cases > > except the true long-term reasons. > > I agree. In fact, I'd go further and say every single use of ExcludeArch > or ExclusiveArch ought to be associated with a bug # in bugzilla. If it's > "it's yaboot, dummy" then that bug # can be CLOSED-WONTFIX from the start. > I favor this because it makes it straightforward to have automated > processes that troll the packages and complain about spec files that use > these tags without having a bug associated in bugzilla. I think having a > bugzilla report explaining why it was never a problem is preferable to > putting magic exclusion lists into any such automated process. Hmm yeah, I hadn't thought of that. That seems like a fine plan. -- dwmw2
