Bug 1036567 - why ExclusiveArch?
Summary: why ExclusiveArch?
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: springlobby
Version: 20
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Gilboa Davara
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: ZedoraTracker
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2013-12-02 09:56 UTC by Dan Horák
Modified: 2013-12-23 03:52 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version: springlobby-0.169-8.fc19
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-12-23 03:44:06 UTC


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Dan Horák 2013-12-02 09:56:13 UTC
springlobby was switched to be x86_64 only, why? Is there a technical reason, is there any bug? Removing primary arch from supported arches requires a bug filled and blocking the ExcludeArch Tracker for ARM (bug 485251).

Please see https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel-announce/2013-August/001224.html and https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Architecture_Build_Failures

BTW the ExclusiveArch tag is incorrect, result to only x86_64 being built, it should be set to "%{ix86} x86_64" if you want x86 arches only


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
springlobby-0.169-7.fc20

Comment 1 Gilboa Davara 2013-12-02 13:45:43 UTC
It should be %{ix86} x86_64. Thanks.
As for arm, its not officially supported [1] by springrts and its unlikely that it will be officially supported in the foreseeable future.

I'll fix the broken ExclusiveArch ASAP.

- Gilboa
[1] http://springrts.com/wiki/Spring_on_ARM

Comment 2 Gilboa Davara 2013-12-02 13:47:53 UTC
Rechecked: The ExclusiveArch is i386 x86_64 which covers the currently supported platforms.
(I had a weird build issues with mock when using %{ix86} and was pressed on time to get it working). Is it %{ix86} vs. "i386 x86_64" considered nice to have or required?

- Gilboa

Comment 3 Dan Horák 2013-12-02 14:19:29 UTC
(In reply to Gilboa Davara from comment #2)
> Rechecked: The ExclusiveArch is i386 x86_64 which covers the currently
> supported platforms.
> (I had a weird build issues with mock when using %{ix86} and was pressed on
> time to get it working). Is it %{ix86} vs. "i386 x86_64" considered nice to
> have or required?

having i386 in the list means there is no 32-bit variant built as Fedora builds as i686

Also still I don't see the reason for the ExclusiveArch as the package builds fine on ARM (http://arm.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=172161), ppc/ppc64 and s390/s390x and there is no report from non-x86 arch in Fedora stating it doesn't work or it crashes. And when it will appear then the arch team can look on it before Exclude/ExclusiveArch is set. That's how things work in Fedora.

Comment 4 Gilboa Davara 2013-12-04 18:55:14 UTC
Dan,

1. I'll issue a fixed build with x86_64 %{ix86}.
2. Builds != Works. Given the fact that spring/arm is considered non-supported-semi-compiles-state and ppc*/s390 are *completely* unsupported by upstream, there's not much I can do if/when bugs are reported. If you're willing to take ownership of spring/arm, I'll be happy to added it to the supported Arch list.

Thanks for the missing arch report.
- Gilboa

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2013-12-05 12:13:31 UTC
springlobby-0.169-8.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/springlobby-0.169-8.fc19

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2013-12-05 12:13:49 UTC
springlobby-0.169-8.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/springlobby-0.169-8.fc20

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2013-12-05 12:14:09 UTC
springlobby-0.169-8.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/springlobby-0.169-8.fc18

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2013-12-05 12:14:14 UTC
spring-95.0-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/spring-95.0-3.fc19

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2013-12-05 12:14:33 UTC
spring-95.0-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/spring-95.0-3.fc20

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2013-12-05 12:14:52 UTC
spring-95.0-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/spring-95.0-3.fc18

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2013-12-05 21:26:45 UTC
Package spring-95.0-3.fc20:
* should fix your issue,
* was pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository,
* should be available at your local mirror within two days.
Update it with:
# su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing spring-95.0-3.fc20'
as soon as you are able to.
Please go to the following url:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-22807/spring-95.0-3.fc20
then log in and leave karma (feedback).

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2013-12-23 03:44:06 UTC
spring-95.0-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2013-12-23 03:46:54 UTC
spring-95.0-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2013-12-23 03:48:32 UTC
springlobby-0.169-8.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2013-12-23 03:50:58 UTC
springlobby-0.169-8.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2013-12-23 03:51:36 UTC
spring-95.0-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2013-12-23 03:52:47 UTC
springlobby-0.169-8.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.