-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 05/30/2007 11:30 AM, Mark McLoughlin wrote: > On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 10:07 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: >> 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. > > As Jakub pointed out, there is a burden - having to wait for the slower > arches to complete a build. I was under the impression that that was one > of the main things that secondary arches was intended to fix. > > Couldn't we have automatic ExcludeArch bug filing when a build fails on > a secondary arch? Technically speaking, of course, everything is possible, but I don't think this is a good idea. Packages do fail on Alpha or PowerPC or Sparc and sometimes it's easy to fix; Sometimes not, we (*human*) need to decide if it's OK to exclude, because there are no other packages depending on this, or if we need to fix it, because we cannot build a bunch of other packages. - -of -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFGXUhXxWN5Ge8lKUMRAs8MAJ9OO0ZDsgbSQ7a64Sa2PjZh3KGGIgCgkkBn YIc9eDvgSnI++JihslWmFHU= =QD0/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
