Hi Matthew,

On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 8:28 PM, Matthew Wilson mj.wilson.uk@googlemail.com wrote:

Please could someone point me to / summarise the process for secondary arch-specific bugs?  I'll raise issues on bugzilla if appropriate, but I wanted to check if there's something specific for Fedora ARM when the issue doesn't occur on i386 / x86_64.

By default the package needs to be fixed/updated by the package maintainers, interacting with them is normally done over bugzilla. So the best way is to open bugs against the package. Make sure that the packager/developer knows how to build (test)packages for ARM so that you can offer to test, and they can build them: - http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures/ARM/Package_Maintainers

When you file bugs, make sure that you set the bug 'ARMTracker' as a blocker. This will make it possible to list all the ARM-affecting bugs in a nice way: - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=ARMTracker&hide_re...

I hope this helps you and wish you good luck! Cheers, Niels

On 03/25/2011 08:28 PM, Matthew Wilson wrote:

Hi all,

Please could someone point me to / summarise the process for secondary arch-specific bugs? I'll raise issues on bugzilla if appropriate, but I wanted to check if there's something specific for Fedora ARM when the issue doesn't occur on i386 / x86_64.

(The specific issue is with Firefox: Ubuntu have seen this one too [1], but the fix of playing with -O2 / -O doesn't have any effect on F13 -- unsurprisingly.)

Usually just report it on bugzilla.redhat.com and set the arch as arm9. That's what I do. But my experience with FF is that it tends to get pushed upstream.

Gordan