For your consideration: Secondary Architectures in Fedora

Josh Boyer jwboyer at
Wed May 30 00:44:02 UTC 2007

On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 17:10 -0700, Chris Weyl wrote:
> On 5/29/07, Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa at> 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.


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list