Peter Robinson wrote: > We are planning to change the way Alternate Architectures (non x86_64) > are handled in terms of "primary" vs "secondary". Let me repost here what I already posted at: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1592#comment:14 There, I wrote: | IMHO, it is entirely unacceptable to let toolchain bugs on obscure | architectures (bugs that, in my experience, are much more frequent than | the OP is claiming) hold our builds hostage (through the proposed "fail on | one = fail on all" principle). It is already painful enough with ARM | (e.g., this showstopper: | https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1342095 has been breaking | builds of several Qt/KDE packages for months and is still not fixed – the | only workaround that makes the affected packages build on ARM makes the | output not Fedora-complaint (it is not allowed to require NEON)). I have | seen even worse architecture-specific bugs and limitations (e.g. on the | number of relocations) from targets such as ppc64 (the obscure "number of | relocations" thing is a real ppc64 example) that this proposal would also | make blocking for builds. | | IMHO, only ONE architecture (probably x86_64) should block builds. A | failure on any other architecture (including ARM) should affect only the | failing architecture. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
