On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 15:11 -0400, Dan Williams wrote: > On Mon, 2006-05-15 at 19:45 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > > > Ohh, I forgot -- we currently use something like > > > > ExclusiveArch: i586, i686, x86_64, ppc > > > > to specify the target archs to build for. Some people don't like that -- > > it would be good if the buildsys could handle this, too (but of course > > the buildsys should not try to build for i386 -- that will fail). > > Out of curiosity, what _do_ they want to do? Do they just want to put > nothing in the specfile Yes, if it is not known that something in the packaged modules *themselves* prevents them from working or makes them useless on some architectures (ExcludeArch), or if it is not known that the modules work or are useful only on a known set of architectures (ExclusiveArch). Consider someone running a custom kernel built for an architecture that is not shipped in FE (for example sparc or ia64 or pentium4 or whatever, these are just examples so ignore specifics and (non-)availability of the rest of the distro for the moment) and modules which per se are very much usable on that architecture. The rebuild of the module packages will fail because of the pesky hardcoded ExclusiveArch which is not there because the modules would actually need it nor to describe constraints of the modules, but because ExclusiveArch is being (ab)used for something else. > and have it work magically? If the buildsys knows the EVR of the latest kernel that modules should be built for and its variants, surely it's also capable of knowing what archs are they available for in FC and knows what archs it can build stuff for, and can pass the appropriate --target rpmbuild switches to the build, no? Why would that be any more magical or cause more assumptions or be somehow bad when it's (sometime going to be, I gather) already passing --define 'kversion ...' and --define 'kvariants ...'? Note: this is not really that big a deal nor would it cause unacceptable practical problems even for distro rebuilders IMO, it's just me (and others who dislike ExclusiveArch being used for the purpose of *adding* non-default archs to build for) being pedantic. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
