On Sun, 2006-01-29 at 20:03 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Am Sonntag, den 29.01.2006, 12:31 +0100 schrieb Thorsten Leemhuis: > > > Just FYI, I created several new tracker bugs: > > > > 179258 - FE-ExcludeArch-x86 > > 179259 - FE-ExcludeArch-x64 > > 179260 - FE-ExcludeArch-ppc > > Okay guys, could someone post a proposal how to handle the whole > ExcludeArch/ExclusiveArch tracking in the future so FESCo can look at it > and change the Package Review Guidelines accordingly? I really would > prefer defined rules that are used in practice over civil > disobedience ;-) Packages that don't build for certain archs due to build problems simply are bugged. IMO, the appropriate means to handle such cases would be filing individual PRs. I.e. filing them under "package:xyz arch:foo" should be sufficient. If you really want something centralized, add a Bugzilla keywords, bugzilla queries could use, but am having doubts on if this would be useful at all. Packages for which "Exclusive/ExcludeArch" is a feature, aren't bugged, therefore I don't see any need to file a PR on them at all. If you want a list/table of "non-general packages", a script could extract this info from *.src.rpms (E.g. the buildsys could do this, when shifting a package from "needssign" to "release"). Whether to feed bugzilla with this info is arguable, automatically feeding a Wiki might be more appropriate. Ralf -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
