Am Montag, den 30.01.2006, 05:49 +0100 schrieb Ralf Corsepius: > 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. Why Bugzilla keywords? We use the tracker bugs for many other things already and people in Core and Extras probably are used to it. And where is the difference between adding "FE-ExcludeArch-ppc" in the "Blocks Bug:" field to adding it after "Keywords:"? I can't see any notable. > 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", Yes, I think we should have one somewhere. We had one in the wiki in the past but it it was dropped because people preferred to have it in bugzilla. Now other people don't want it in bugzilla :-| > 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. Well, a quick grep trough the devel checkout showed 46 packages that currently have ExcludeArch or ExclusiveArch. For some of them the bugs are already filed. Some of those are probably in the category "ExcludeArch because the packager was not able to fix it" and have no bugs yet. I think round about 20 of these 46 are "ExcludeArch because a package is for certain archs only" and have no bug yet -- reporting bugs for them is a job that can be done in round about 30-60 minutes (heck, this whole discussion took longer already). Writing the script takes longer afaics. Both need a bit care later. Just my 2 cent. -- Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
