Re: [fedora-arm] ExcludeArch tracker doesn't appear to be effective

On 06/12/2014 12:03 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> 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)

Things have probably changed dramatically since I last looked at this
extensively (with ARM becoming primary), but back then were about 40
packages in EL6 that build OK on ARM (in some cases with easily
available additional patches) even though the spec file lists them as
exclusive to x86. I know this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison, some
of the said packages are not applicable on ARM (e.g. mcrocode_ctl and
mcelog) and is rather out of date, but the data point suggests that arch
exclusivity to x86 might not in all cases necessarily be as
authoritative as implied, and some may well build OK on ARM regardless.

Gordan

_______________________________________________
arm mailing list
arm@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm