On Mon, 2007-06-25 at 10:11 -0400, Adam Jackson wrote:
> Many of these are just adding %{arm} to ExclusiveArch. I'm becoming of
> the opinion that ExclusiveArch is almost always worse than ExcludeArch,
> and that the presence of either one should be justified either in the
> review or in the spec itself.
>
> At the moment, the packaging guidelines say nothing about this, afaict.
But, for what it is worth, the SecondaryArchitectures draft does comment
on this subject:
"Fedora Packages should avoid using ExclusiveArch, except when
absolutely correct. Only packages which are exclusively arch specific
should use ExclusiveArch (e.g. a bootloader designed for only one
architecture). ExcludeArch should only be set when the architecture is
not relevant for the package, the package is non-functional on the
architecture, or the code does not compile cleanly for the
architecture.
By using ExcludeArch on an arch by arch basis, it enables the majority
of packages to have the chance to build on new secondary architectures,
rather than being immediately ignored by a blanket ExclusiveArch."
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/SecondaryArchitectures
~spot
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
