x86_64 blocks i386?
bugs.michael at gmx.net
Mon Mar 21 12:10:54 UTC 2005
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 09:38:12 +0100, Nils Philippsen wrote:
> On Sun, 2005-03-20 at 23:01 -0500, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > Michael Schwendt (bugs.michael at gmx.net) said:
> > > 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?
> > Well, if you want to play by the same rules as Core, any
> > arch failure blocks all arches. There have been arguments, of
> > course, as to how well this rule works. :)
> It has worked well for me in the past, I didn't need to be kicked in the
> butt to fix problems on "other" arches. But then I'm only re-stating
> what I already said ;-).
Before this threads gets out of hand, it's a matter of what you can expect
community volunteers to do.
No AMD64 test machine running F4T1+Extras, debugging x86_64 build or
run-time problems can become an impossible mission.
No AMD64 enthusiasts who would be looking into announced blocker bugs in a
timely manner, the requirement for packages to build on more than the h/w
architecture the packager volunteered to support, is dangerous.
During FC2 and FC3 test periods, the fedora.us requirement for packages to
build not just for the last stable release but also compile fine with
current FC Development added a significant hurdle already. It is wishful
thinking, that community contributors not just follow FC Devel or early
test releases, but also can test and debug on more than one h/w arch.
More information about the fedora-extras-list