On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 2:57 PM, Dan Horák <dan@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 29 Aug 2017 14:51:49 +0100 > "Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> (1) Continue having broken dependencies for the affected packages on >> aarch64 for a bit and see if upstream come up with anything. > > I would lean to that "solution" Me, too. Let's give upstream a chance to fix the problem. BTW, most of the packages that sit on top of coq have new versions available, so when this is fixed, I will want to update the other packages anyway. If you could let me know when a fix for this issue is available, I will take care of building everything else. >> (2) ‘ExcludeArch: aarch64’ on coq and its dependencies. We would of >> course file the relavent ExcludeArch bugs. The thing that stops me >> doing this is that we're nowhere nearer to having a fix, so it just >> punts the problem, plus aarch64 is an important target and Coq is an >> important package. I'd say we should do this only if we are getting close to F27 beta (maybe final) freeze and no upstream fix is in sight. In that case, we'll want to have the rebuilt packages available for other architectures. >> (3) Disable the problematic coq modules. I'm not clear if they are >> necessary however, since I've only used Coq as an end user, I've never >> delved into how it works. Which ones are problematic? All of them? -- Jerry James http://www.jamezone.org/ _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
