On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 18:31 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > You keep saying this, and I disagree whole-heartedly. My experience > with sparc tells me this is absolutely not the case. I posted the bug numbers to support my observations, and they supported my qualitative recollection. Perhaps it's just that PowerPC is in dramatically better shape than SPARC, in general. Or maybe you've suffered a lot by being out of sync with Fedora proper. I'd be interested to see your data and how you've classified the bugs. If your recollection _is_ indicative of what we'll get when we pull in more esoteric architectures, even that isn't necessarily so much cause for concern -- we'll be a lot better off if we can keep those architectures in sync with the main Fedora repository, and we'll also be able to improve on it a lot just by enforcing the 'SHOULD regularly rebuild in mock' rule¹. That'll tend to catch what I suspect would be the most common arch-specific failure mode, which would be GCC or other toolchain issues. (With your multitude of arch-specific bugs, perhaps you can confirm or deny that's what the most common such bug is likely to be?) Besides, the fact remains that the 'burden' it places on the package maintainer is _trivial_. The minimal case is that they just file an _empty_ bug for the ExcludeArch and ship the failed package anyway. Obviously we expect better from our competent maintainers than that, but the lowest common denominator wouldn't be _forced_ into anything even approaching conscientiousness; only encouraged towards it. -- dwmw2 ¹ I'd like to stick to the RFC2119 definition of 'SHOULD' -- as in; you don't have to, but you'd better have a damn good reason why not. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
