Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 29.01.2006, 13:32 +0100 schrieb Hans de Goede:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Sorry for crossposting -- replies please only to fedora-extras-list.
tia!
Just FYI, I created several new tracker bugs:
179258 - FE-ExcludeArch-x86
179259 - FE-ExcludeArch-x64
179260 - FE-ExcludeArch-PPC
How should they get used? Simple: If you have a packages that uses
ExcludeArch or ExclusiveArch to exclude some architectures from the
build you need to file a separate bug for them [*1]. This bug should be
marked as blocking the corresponding tracker bug(s) listed above -- this
simplifies tracking such issues for other people interested in these
archs that might want to take a look into the problem and fix it.
What if the ExclusiveArch is not a bug but a feature, for example say a
userspace support tools for certain hardware only found on certain
archs? Then there is no problem to fix, should one then still file bugs?
In the past I would have said "no" but a lot of other packagers
disagreed and convinced me -- so the answer is a "yes" from me now.
Other people simply might not know that the package is "for certain
hardware only found on certain archs". So it should be written down
somewhere. A bug is the right place for it. And in such cases you simply
can close the bug after reporting (as I wrote in the first mail).
I find this purely administrative overhead with little or no gain. When
drafting policies please remeber that Fedora is a volunteer driven project.
Policies like this remind me of my day time job, and thats a job for the
Dutch goverment, or about as bureaucratic as one can get.
<enter civil disobedience mode>
I maintain several hardware related packages which fall under this
policy / decision and I refuse to enter bugs for them. If someone else
feels the need to open bugs against them for this feel free to do so,
but I want open them myself.
</mode>
Regards,
Hans
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list