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 just
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
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
