On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 08:26 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > I'm done arguing this with you. Quite simply a build that completes just fine > on the primary arches but fails on a secondary arch is squarely on the > secondary arch team to investigate. Until you know _why_ it failed on the secondary arch, you don't know that the build on the primary arch is good. We've _seen_ cases where a generic failure just _happens_ to show up on one architecture due to the phase of the moon or the number of CPUs in the build box. The packagemonkey approach of just adding ExcludeArch and forgetting it (or the QAmonkey approach of just letting the partially-failed builds out unchecked) is just papering over a real problem. Letting partially-failed builds make it through into the repository without _any_ intervention or investigation by the package maintainer is completely insane and irresponsible. I am ashamed to see you advocate it in public. > They can ask for the assistance of the > package maintainer if they need it. I'm not about to prevent good builds > that completed just fine on the primary arches from reaching the public repos > of said primary arches. Of course we wouldn't want to prevent good builds from getting out -- nobody's suggested that we would. Please stop being making things up. The fact remains that any competent package maintainer, and any competent QA person, would want failures to be investigated _before_ a package hits the public repository -- to make sure it's not a generic issue. And if the maintainer _does_ conclude that it's arch-specific, it's _trivial_ for her to file the bug and let the built packages out into the wild. Of _course_ it isn't prevented. -- dwmw2 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
