For your consideration: Secondary Architectures in Fedora

[Josh Boyer]

On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 17:10 -0700, Chris Weyl wrote:
> On 5/29/07, Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa at redhat.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 16:00 -0700, Chris Weyl wrote:
> >
> > > In other words, by only failing a build when a primary arch fails, we
> > > enable the inclusion of many other architectures for those who care
> > > about them, without imposing additional burdens on all maintainers
> > > (who may not care about them).
> > >
> > > Otherwise, why bother making a distinction at all?
> >
> > Precisely.
> >
> > Now, when a build fails on a secondary arch, it won't be silent. Emails
> > will go out to the architecture team, as well as a daily summary to
> > fedora-devel-list on a per-arch basis (e.g. I built these packages
> > sucessfully, I tried to build these, but they failed).
> 
> Yah.  I assume this is where the people interested in the secondary
> arches step in -- each arch will have a SIG, SIGs will monitor
> failures, investigate, and file bugs when they have a fix for a given
> package?

Something like that.

> Sounds like a good process to me; opens up the buildsys to more arches
> w/o imposing more work (on anyone who isn't wanting that work, at
> least).

That's a bit of bad statement.  I'm not wanting to do work to fix things
on x86, but I do.  The purpose of secondary arches isn't to get people
out of work.  It's to allow the base to move forward for the majority of
Fedora users.

josh