On Wed, Jun 12, 2024 at 10:05:13AM -0400, Ben Beasley wrote: > This never made it to the packaging guidelines, but FESCo made a relevant > decision a few years ago: > > Libraries packaged in Fedora may require ISA extensions, however any > packaged application must not crash on any officially supported > architecture, either by providing a generic fallback implementation OR by > cleanly exiting when the requisite hardware support is unavailable. > > https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/issue/1044 Wow, that is incredibly *loosely* written. That allows for glibc to build itself with '-march=x86-64-v2', or for systemd to build itself with '-march=x86_64-v2 -mneeded', at the discretion of the maintainer. This would effectively reverse the entire decision to reject the x86-64-v2 baseline feature proposal for. Surely that is not what they meant to permit ? Surely this exception was only intended to be scoped more narrowly ? Perhaps to non-critical path libraries, or only packages outside the default release media ? With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
