On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 05:23:01PM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 03:45:57PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Eh. We're constrained by our own policies here, not by anything
> fundamental - LLVM being broken on ARM ought to mean that our ARM
> product is worse, not that everything else is dragged down to the same
> level.
So .. ExcludeArch %{arm} should be added? I'm not clear what you're
saying here.
ExcludeArch implies that it's acceptable that it doesn't build on ARM
and removes the incentive for anyone to fix it. It's not.
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org