On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 03:45:57PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 07:54:26AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 10:20:46PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 09, 2014 at 08:43:07PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > > Can we excludearch %{arm} for this one?
> > >
> > > Why? It's a bug that it doesn't build on ARM. Refusing to build it
> > > doesn't fix the bug, and then someone else will crash into the same
> > > issue when they dare to build something that needs llvm.
> >
> > It seems the alternative is hfsplus-tools doesn't work at all for
> > anyone.
>
> Eh. We're constrained by our own policies here, not by anything
> fundamental - LLVM being broken on ARM ought to mean that our ARM
> product is worse, not that everything else is dragged down to the same
> level.
So .. ExcludeArch %{arm} should be added? I'm not clear what you're
saying here.
Rich.
--
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
virt-top is 'top' for virtual machines. Tiny program with many
powerful monitoring features, net stats, disk stats, logging, etc.
http://people.redhat.com/~rjones/virt-top
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
