ppc64 builds
Axel Thimm
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Sun Mar 18 19:12:11 UTC 2007
On Sun, Mar 18, 2007 at 06:43:18PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 11:30 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Sunday 18 March 2007 08:05:37 David Woodhouse wrote:
> > > We've never bothered shipping 64-bit versions of Extras packages before
> > > -- unless you suddenly find an overriding reason to do so, I don't see
> > > any reason to rebuild for F7 just to add a 64-bit binary package which
> > > we don't need to ship anyway.
> >
> > By merging all the packages into one big collection we can't
> > segregate "Extras" and "Core" anymore for decisions such as build for ppc64
> > or not. Every package will build for every arch unless explicitly told not
> > to, and if told, there is supposed to be bug regarding this according to our
> > guidelines (which you wanted IIRC). This means we need to turn on ppc64 in
> > the new build system to keep the current "Core" packages building there, and
> > we need to bootstrap the rest of the packages so that they can start building
> > ppc64 without causing failures all over the place.
>
> This is true. I was just suggesting that we don't necessarily need to
> rush out and do a mass rebuild of all Extras packages before F7 just to
> create ppc64 versions of them, since those _wouldn't_ be likely to end
> up in the "ppc" compose; they'd only be in the pure ppc64 tree which
> isn't a product we release; it's just the same as the unshipped ia64,
> s390 rawhide trees.
You mean anything that doesn't get on one of the spins will get banned
off the ftp servers? ;=)
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20070318/fbc3d0cd/attachment.sig>
More information about the Fedora-maintainers
mailing list