x86_64 blocks i386?
nphilipp at redhat.com
Sun Mar 20 18:52:10 UTC 2005
On Sun, 2005-03-20 at 00:41 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Since I only just noticed that the requested rebuilds for gpgme and
> gpgme03 in FE Development were not published, because they failed on
> x86_64, I got to ask:
> When and where has it been decided that x86_64 blocks i386?
> If that is the case, I see myself unable to support my packages (and
> gpgme03 which I've maintained for a series of revisions) as I don't have
> access to an AMD64 machine and no AMD64 running Rawhide either.
Let me address this from a different angle: IMO, If we want Extras to be
of similar quality as Core, failure on one platform should block all the
others. Otherwise people don't have enough incentive to fix bugs on
platforms they don't care about as much as about "their" platform and
versions/releases are bound to leapfrog between the platforms. With such
a rigid setup, I can ask "which V-R of foo will do bar" and have one
definitive answer, but not so with possibly different V-Rs on different
Example: Currently Seth and I struggle with the x86_64 build of bzflag
which only fails in the build root (and only on x86_64). I'd rather have
no package issued for i386 until these problem is solved. To debug this
issue I would like access to the build root in question, at least read-
only, but that is out of the question: Seth can't possible give all
package maintainers access to his build boxes.
Nils Philippsen / Red Hat / nphilipp at redhat.com
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -- B. Franklin, 1759
PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011
More information about the fedora-extras-list