Am Sonntag, den 29.01.2006, 14:47 +0100 schrieb Hans de Goede: > 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. There is one thing in this discussion that I don't understand: It seems I'm the bad guy now for a small modification (that several people requested in the past) to a policy that we have for several month now. Did I miss anything? All I requested was to link that bug to another. Nobody complained before about the "Bugs need be filed for all ExcludeArchs" rule that is there for a long time already. > When > drafting policies please remeber that Fedora is a volunteer driven project. That needs rules because it can't live without it. Sometimes there are rules that people don't like. That's life, but we have to deal with it somehow. > 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> I nowhere requested that bugs for all existing ExcluseArchs need to be filed. But I would be glad if the packagers or someone else could do that, yes. Anyway, as you said, we are a volunteer driven project and I'm willing to change the rules if they are to bureaucratic. "civil disobedience mode" does not help in the long term. So, if anyone has a better idea how to handle this stuff please post it to me and we'll talk about it in FESCo. But when doing this please remember this: There are volunteers in FE that are interested in archs (x86_64, ppc) that a lot of packagers don't own. Those x86_64/ppc people need a way to track and fix packaging-issues that the packagers on i386 can't fix. And they need a way to distinguish between "ExludeArch because a package is for certain archs only" and "ExludeArch because the packager was not able to fix it". Hans, would you prefer if we handle the "ExludeArch because a package is for certain archs only" handle in the spec files directly as comment? I see no way around bugzilla for the "ExludeArch because the packager was not able to fix it" case. -- Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
