On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 11:46 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > 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? It's an alternative, easier to use if chasing specific issues. > We use the tracker bugs for many other things > already and people in Core and Extras probably are used to it. IMO, "tracker bugs" are the means of choice for dependencies, e.g. a bug in one package blocking others from upgrading. > 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. ExcludeA* are a bug's feature/attribute (Actually a band-aid to work around a deficit inside of a package), not a dependency. An arch-specific bug in GCC, preventing a package from being upgraded would be a dependency. > > 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 :-| Well, could have been me, who said that. IMO, bugzilla is a bug tracking system, and should be applied as such. What Fedora actually needs is a "package status/tracking system", presenting a summary and status in a nicely written, simple web package (Something similar to the Debian devel 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. > > 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. That's what I thought. Somebody, who has a fully checked out CVS or (IMO preferable) a complete local copy of the FE SRPMS, could easily write a script and feed a wiki on a, say weekly or daily, basis (No I can't do this, I don't have the bandwidth required for keeping my SRPMS current). Ralf -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
