New tracker bugs for the use of ExcludeArchs in packages

[Hans de Goede]

Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Nobody complained so loudly before -- why suddenly? All *I* requested is
> to link this bug to the tracker bug -- that takes only 5 seconds per
> bug. This whole discussion took much more time already.
> 
> "All Fesco does with this rule" would probably be more suitable -- so
> okay, I you guys don't like that "MUST" rule then we can try to revisit
> it and modify it. See the other mail to Hans I wrote some minutes ago
> for details.

Speaking only for myself:

The problem is not the tracker bug it is your clarification / reply to 
my initial question if this should be done in all cases. In practice 
reviewers have been handling it as suggested in your reply to my second 
mail this thread. It is not necessary to write down every exception in 
the guidelines / procedures, it is necessary to allow for interpretation 
room, your reply took the room (which I thought was there for 
interpretation) away.

Regards,

Hans