On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:29:41PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Ok, I was entirely unaware of that, and it does change things. Thanks
> for letting me know. I'll look into whether it's practical to generate a
> list of all the existing ExcludeArch packages and automatically check
> whether they have tracker bugs filed - does that seem helpful? It
> *would* be good to have meaningful metrics on this, but I don't want
> there to be excessive process overhead.
I pulled git and have the following for ExclusiveArch: %{arm}:
gda
Agda-stdlib
amplab-tachyon
avgtime
avogadro
avro
clpeak
compat-gcc-32
compat-gcc-34
cqrlog
derelict
dustmite
dyninst
elk
floppy-support
ghc-ForSyDe
gl3n
glusterfs-hadoop
grub2
grub-customizer
gtkd
hadoop
hbase
hfsplus-tools
hive
hledger
jogl
joystick-support
keepass
ldc
liveusb-creator
Macaulay2
mcollective-qpid-plugin
numactl
numad
numatop
nwchem
ocaml-cil
ocaml-gsl
patchelf
perftest
perl-Alien-ROOT
perl-qpid
perl-SOOT
pig
pure
pure-glpk
pyode
qt-creator
root
rootplot
sbt
scilab
seamonkey
solr
sparkleshare
sys_basher
tango
urjtag
wine-mono
zfs-fuse
That's 60. In addition, the following packages are ExclusiveArch: in
such a way that ARM is left out but PPC support is claimed:
gprolog
mono-bouncycastle
nant
pvs-sbcl
xsupplicant
for a total of 65. Of those:
compat-gcc32
compat-gcc34
floppy-support
grub
grub-customizer
joystick-support
liveusb-creator
numactl
numad
numatop
seem entirely legitimate. That's 55 packages, several of which can be
blamed on a small number of missing dependencies.
That's git master. In F20 the number is about the same, which I'm going
to assume means that there were some fixes and around the same number of
excludes added.
(This ignores packages that are ExclusiveArch: %ix86 x86_64 because
that's probably unfair - if the maintainer genuinely believes that it
makes sense for the package to be x86 only then that's fair)
So, two conclusions from this:
1) People are very bad at following policy here. The majority of the
packages that are marked ExcludeArch: arm are not in the tracker bug,
and most of those don't appear to have a bug filed at all.
2) The rate at which things are being fixed appears to be uninfluenced
by (1) - the number of bugs on the tracker may have increased, but the
number of packages actually excluded on ARM hasn't. This means that I
was grossly overestimating how many packages were broken. I made an
assertion without collecting accurate data first, and came to the wrong
conclusion. I apologise for that.
I'll look at filing bugs against packages that don't appear to have bugs
filed, and I'll attempt to add them to the tracker where they exist but
aren't listed.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
