[fab] Architecture Policy.

[Bill Nottingham]

David Woodhouse (dwmw2 at infradead.org) said: 
> I'm concerned by some of the details though -- and I'm especially
> concerned by the fact that it seems like a retrograde step for
> architectures which are currently built in rawhide but which aren't
> listed in the new set of 'primary architectures', by taking away their
> current build infrastructure. That's not 'encouraging extra
> architectures' -- it's very much the opposite, for those architectures
> which are _most_ viable of the non-'primary' set.

Public build system does not necessarily allow for it for all the
arches that are currently built for rawhide. The simplest way to
achieve something is via the shadow mechanism mentioned.

> I'm particularly interested in the decision to stop counting PowerPC as
> a primary architecture. I've heard rumours that this decision was in
> part because PPC was responsible for most of the recent release slippage
> -- but that doesn't seem to be backed up by the slip announcements --
> the first one for FC6² lists only one PPC-specific issue in the five
> problems that caused the slip, and the second one³ doesn't seem to
> mention _anything_ that's specific to PPC.

Off the top of my head, I can remember:

- bad package ordering
- wrong kernels being installed
- inability to do automated testing

> The FAQ also says "there is a reason to stop doing PPC as a primary arch
> until/unless it reaches critical mass once again". What, specifically,
> is the reason mentioned there?

Demand for PPC has *decreased* for each release since its introuction,
going by the torrent stats. If it's really that alive, there should
be no problem getting a community to maintain it, correct?

> (In fact, I'd suggest that we don't make such a clear technical
> distinction between 'primary' and 'secondary' in the build system -- it
> should all be done through the same mechanism,

See above.

>  1. A clear intention _not_ to move backwards for architectures like
>     IA64 which are _so_ close to having a 'proper' Fedora release, and 
>     have already got FC6 ISO images built. It was looking quite likely
>     that if they keep up the good work, they could perhaps have had
>     an official FC7/IA64 release. I don't want our changes to make that
>     any _less_ likely, for FC7.

You misunderstand. Any release built solely from Fedora Source (*) can
be called Fedora.

>  3.  A commitment that the existing build machines will not suddenly be
>      made unavailable until/unless suitable replacement arrangements are
>      in place for _all_ current Rawhide architectures.

That's not feasible. We don't have the resources for a s/390, and I doubt
any one is going to cough one up. (No, not hercules.)

> 4.   A commitment to quality -- in particular a commitment that
>      developers will not suddenly find it acceptable to commit x86-only
>      code (assuming little-endianness, including inline assembly etc.).

Yes, we're all about running amok polluting the pristine PPC code with
little-endian viruses. Sheesh.

Bill