New tracker bugs for the use of ExcludeArchs in packages

[Hans de Goede]

Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 29.01.2006, 14:47 +0100 schrieb Hans de Goede: 
>> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>>> What if the ExclusiveArch is not a bug but a feature, for example say a 
>>>> userspace support tools for certain hardware only found on certain 
>>>> archs? Then there is no problem to fix, should one then still file bugs?
>>> In the past I would have said "no" but a lot of other packagers
>>> disagreed and convinced me -- so the answer is a "yes" from me now.
>>>
>>> Other people simply might not know that the package is "for certain
>>> hardware only found on certain archs". So it should be written down
>>> somewhere. A bug is the right place for it. And in such cases you simply
>>> can close the bug after reporting (as I wrote in the first mail). 
>>>
>> I find this purely administrative overhead with little or no gain.
> 
> There is one thing in this discussion that I don't understand: It seems
> I'm the bad guy now for a small modification (that several people
> requested in the past) to a policy that we have for several month now.
> Did I miss anything? All I requested was to link that bug to another.
> Nobody complained before about the "Bugs need be filed for all
> ExcludeArchs" rule that is there for a long time already.
> 

This is in no way meant personal, you're the FESco chair, you're 
speaking on behalf of FESco, I'm replying to FESco, not to you personal.
<humor intended>
Didn't you notice this big bullseye on your back yet ?
</humor>

> Anyway, as you said, we are a volunteer driven project and I'm willing
> to change the rules if they are to bureaucratic. "civil disobedience
> mode" does not help in the long term. So, if anyone has a better idea
> how to handle this stuff please post it to me and we'll talk about it in
> FESCo. 
> 
> But when doing this please remember this: There are volunteers in FE
> that are interested in archs (x86_64, ppc) that a lot of packagers don't
> own. Those x86_64/ppc people need a way to track and fix
> packaging-issues that the packagers on i386 can't fix. And they need a
> way to distinguish between "ExludeArch because a package is for certain
> archs only" and "ExludeArch because the packager was not able to fix
> it".
> 

Agreed, actually I'm an x86_64 user, and I (think I) have the skills to 
fix x86_64 bugs so I'm all for such a tracker bug. For the "ExcludeArch 
because the packager was not able to fix it" case, for the other case 
however it is pure unneeded administrative pressure. Thats why I asked 
you to clarify, and thats why I reacted as I did when in your 
clarification you said that this rule applied to all cases/ scenarios.

> Hans, would you prefer if we handle the "ExludeArch because a package is
> for certain archs only" handle in the spec files directly as comment?

Yes, that would be exactly what I want. That would also keep the normal 
bugzilla components (everything but "Package Review" component) for what 
they are meant: Bugs, not building on an arch where the package should 
reasonably built is a bug, not building because it is useless is not a 
bug. (Some might even built, but since they are useless why would one 
built them?)

 > I see no way around bugzilla for the "ExludeArch because the packager was
> not able to fix it" case.
 >

Agreed, that is not what I'm asking for, I actually like that part.

Regards,

Hans