Hi everyone,

I have a small issue with the review of the v8 package that I'm
currently looking at:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=634909#c18

The short story is this; the packaging guidelines state that for every
architecture a package doesn't build on, the .spec should list an
ExcludeArch:, which should be updated with a specific #bz link.

I derive my understanding for this requirement from:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures#ExcludeArch_.26_ExclusiveArch

Which says:

"By using ExcludeArch on an arch by arch basis, it enables the
majority of packages to have the chance to build on new
secondary architectures, rather than being immediately ignored
by a blanket ExclusiveArch."

In this case, with v8 basically being little more than a Javascript
compiler / JIT system, it's not so much a package with portability
problems than a package which is genuinely going to take serious work to
get going on other architectures other than the current x86/arm.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to ask Lubomir, the packager, to
change the current ExclusiveArch, because I think that is the more
correct expression of what this software supports. However, as a MUST:
requirement this is a review blocker.

Now, what to do? I suppose in a sense this is a Packaging Committee
issue, however, the packaging guidelines and the review guidelines are
separate documents - and I don't get the sense from the review
guidelines that there is an established method of overriding a MUST:

Obviously for expeditious reasons the change to the .spec could be made
to "dance the dance" as it were, but would I really get put on the
naughty step if I thought it should be approved as-is?

Thanks

Alex.


--
This message was scanned by Better Hosted and is believed to be clean.
http://www.betterhosted.com

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

On 12/10/2010 02:00 PM, Alex Hudson wrote:
> Obviously for expeditious reasons the change to the .spec could be made
> to "dance the dance" as it were, but would I really get put on the
> naughty step if I thought it should be approved as-is?

No, this seems like a reasonable exception to me.

~tom

==
Fedora Project
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Alex Hudson wrote:


> It doesn't make a lot of sense to me to ask Lubomir, the packager, to
> change the current ExclusiveArch, because I think that is the more
> correct expression of what this software supports. However, as a MUST:
> requirement this is a review blocker.

ExclusiveArch is a justifiable exception here (ie, to use in the case of
something known to only build on particular architectures).

-- Rex

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel