New tracker bugs for the use of ExcludeArchs in packages

[Thorsten Leemhuis]

Am Sonntag, den 29.01.2006, 14:47 +0100 schrieb Hans de Goede: 
> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > Am Sonntag, den 29.01.2006, 13:32 +0100 schrieb Hans de Goede:
> >> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >>> Sorry for crossposting -- replies please only to fedora-extras-list.
> >>> tia!
> >>>
> >>> Just FYI, I created several new tracker bugs:
> >>>
> >>> 179258 - FE-ExcludeArch-x86
> >>> 179259 - FE-ExcludeArch-x64
> >>> 179260 - FE-ExcludeArch-PPC 
> >>>
> >>> How should they get used? Simple: If you have a packages that uses 
> >>> ExcludeArch or ExclusiveArch to exclude some architectures from the
> >>> build you need to file a separate bug for them [*1]. This bug should be
> >>> marked as blocking the corresponding tracker bug(s) listed above -- this
> >>> simplifies tracking such issues for other people interested in these
> >>> archs that might want to take a look into the problem and fix it.
> >>>
> >> 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.

>  When 
> drafting policies please remeber that Fedora is a volunteer driven project.

That needs rules because it can't live without it. Sometimes there are
rules that people don't like. That's life, but we have to deal with it
somehow.

> Policies like this remind me of my day time job, and thats a job for the 
> Dutch goverment, or about as bureaucratic as one can get.

:-)

> <enter civil disobedience mode>
> I maintain several hardware related packages which fall under this 
> policy / decision and I refuse to enter bugs for them. If someone else 
> feels the need to open bugs against them for this feel free to do so, 
> but I want open them myself.
> </mode>

I nowhere requested that bugs for all existing ExcluseArchs need to be
filed. But I would be glad if the packagers or someone else could do
that, yes. 

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".

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? I
see no way around bugzilla for the "ExludeArch because the packager was
not able to fix it" case.
-- 
Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora at leemhuis.info>