Comment # 5 on bug 1106829 from Michal Suchanek

The kernel project gets all architectures for which packages exist - otherwise
they would not build. That means that x86-only projects like the ones for azure
branches suddenly grow arm architectures if dtbs are to be built always.(In
reply to Andreas F�rber from comment #4)
> (In reply to Michal Suchanek from comment #3)
> > (In reply to Andreas F�rber from comment #2)
> > > (In reply to Michal Suchanek from comment #1)
> > > > What's the point if you don't have an ARM kernel to match these DTBs? It's
> > > > not like the dtbs are either backward or forward compatible.
> > > 
> > > They are supposed to be compatible. 
> > 
> > Supposed to, right.
> > 
> > > EBBR increases the need for that.
> > > 
> > > In several cases I test new dtb with old kernel while building - it often
> > > works.
> > 
> > You are building anyway so how long does the dtb build take? 
> > For me building dtbs was always really fast.
> 
> It's the zypper part that's superfluous.

???

> 
> Let me formulate it more drastically: We have not had our former dtb-source
> package integrated into kernel-source for you to tell us that you don't want
> to build our packages anymore. That is simply unacceptable.

They get built in sensible scenarios.

> 
> > > In any case, when someone complains, please CC me on the bug or talk to me.
> > 
> > I think the reason was the azure kernel. Either way not building dtbs for
> > non-arm kernels is a nice cleanup. I do not really see a compelling use case
> > for the kernelless dtbs so I don't want to revert to building dtbs always.
> 
> These packages have always been built for armv6hl, armv7hl and aarch64 only,
> and they are not noarch packages, so I don't see any connection to azure
> kernels or other architectures.

The kernel project gets all architectures for which packages exist - otherwise
they would not build. That means that x86-only projects like the ones for azure
branches suddenly grow arm architectures if dtbs are to be built without arm
configs.

> 
> You have not given any compelling reason for your unilateral change, it was
> not discussed beforehand, so please revert to the previous state and if
> there's a problem we can then discuss how to fix it properly.

You have not described any problem in enough detail so that it can be fixed.