x86_64 blocks i386?

Michael Schwendt bugs.michael at gmx.net
Sun Mar 20 19:30:06 UTC 2005

On Sun, 20 Mar 2005 19:52:10 +0100, Nils Philippsen wrote:

> > 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
> platforms. 
> 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.
> Tough one...

Well, gpgme03 here only fails when built in mach. And I assume that
gpgme fails for the same reason.

[How about mass-rebuilding all of Fedora Extras 3 in mach to see how far it

More information about the fedora-extras-list mailing list