https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254392
Daniel Berrangé <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #9 from Daniel Berrangé <[email protected]> --- (In reply to kb1000 from comment #8) > Unrelated to that: Someone approached me and requested me to add aarch64 > support to the COPR repository. According to the previous maintainer, > RenderDoc is only officially supported on x86_64. The person wanting aarch64 > support has told me it seems to work, though couldn't fully test it as the > drivers weren't fully working (Open-source Nvidia and Asahi with Vulkan, > so...). Should I add aarch64 to the package's ExclusiveArch anyways? If a package builds on an architecture and is conceptually relevant, then Fedora maintainers are expected to enable it even if not officially supported by upstream. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#_architecture_support Generally I would say use 'ExcludeArch' to omit arches where it is known to have problem, rather than ExclusiveArch. ie default to enabled, rather than disabled. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254392 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202254392%23c9 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
