As discussed during the last meeting [1], we want to track bugs related to x86 in one single place. The FE-ExcludeArch-x86 bug [2] seems to be the right place to do it or at least, should be tracked by this SIG as well.
My only concern is about the naming/purpose of the tracker, since some bugs related to x86 platforms may not be related to setting an ExcludeArch in a package.
Any thoughts here?
[1] https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2017-09-06/x86.2017-09-06... [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=179258
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 8:43 PM, Athos Ribeiro athoscribeiro@gmail.com wrote:
My only concern is about the naming/purpose of the tracker, since some bugs related to x86 platforms may not be related to setting an ExcludeArch in a package.
Do you mean that there might be a x86 bug the maintainer has forgotten to add to the tracker or are you talking about something completely different?
On Thu, Sep 07, 2017 at 08:56:30PM +0300, Alexander Ploumistos wrote:
Do you mean that there might be a x86 bug the maintainer has forgotten to add to the tracker or are you talking about something completely different?
Well, what if, for example, there is a test failing during %check, and the packager decides to skip it and open a bug for that instead of adding ExcludeArch, shall he still block this bug? Will he? My concern was only about the wording on the tracker alias name.
On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:43 PM, Athos Ribeiro athoscribeiro@gmail.com wrote:
As discussed during the last meeting [1], we want to track bugs related to x86 in one single place. The FE-ExcludeArch-x86 bug [2] seems to be the right place to do it or at least, should be tracked by this SIG as well.
My only concern is about the naming/purpose of the tracker, since some bugs related to x86 platforms may not be related to setting an ExcludeArch in a package.
Any thoughts here?
[1] https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-2/2017-09-06/x86.2017-09-06... [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=179258
Good find! Wasn't what I was thinking, but I do agree we need to watch it. It looks to me like that tracker bug is intended for packages that won't build on x86. I think we should create a separate one for boot/kernel/user issues. I don't want to re-purpose one that is owned by the packaging team.
Thanks for tracking that down! jeff
-
Alexander Ploumistos -
Athos Ribeiro -
Jeff Backus