Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 29.01.2006, 14:47 +0100 schrieb Hans de Goede:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
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.
This is in no way meant personal, you're the FESco chair, you're
speaking on behalf of FESco, I'm replying to FESco, not to you personal.
<humor intended>
Didn't you notice this big bullseye on your back yet ?
</humor>
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".
Agreed, actually I'm an x86_64 user, and I (think I) have the skills to
fix x86_64 bugs so I'm all for such a tracker bug. For the "ExcludeArch
because the packager was not able to fix it" case, for the other case
however it is pure unneeded administrative pressure. Thats why I asked
you to clarify, and thats why I reacted as I did when in your
clarification you said that this rule applied to all cases/ scenarios.
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?
Yes, that would be exactly what I want. That would also keep the normal
bugzilla components (everything but "Package Review" component) for what
they are meant: Bugs, not building on an arch where the package should
reasonably built is a bug, not building because it is useless is not a
bug. (Some might even built, but since they are useless why would one
built them?)
> I see no way around bugzilla for the "ExludeArch because the packager was
not able to fix it" case.
>
Agreed, that is not what I'm asking for, I actually like that part.
Regards,
Hans
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
