On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 16:00 -0700, Chris Weyl wrote: > In other words, by only failing a build when a primary arch fails, we > enable the inclusion of many other architectures for those who care > about them, without imposing additional burdens on all maintainers > (who may not care about them). We have that already. The existing policy, allowing ExcludeArch but requiring a bug to be filed, works extremely well. > Otherwise, why bother making a distinction at all? A question which had occurred to me also. We seem to be trying to 'solve' a problem which hasn't actually been demonstrated to exist yet. For building (and scheduling) actual releases, there may be some point in making the distinction. For the routine package builds, it seems unnecessary. -- dwmw2 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
