For your consideration: Secondary Architectures in Fedora

Jeremy Katz katzj at
Wed May 30 14:42:06 UTC 2007

On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 16:18 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> This is a very early draft of what I am planning on presenting to FESCo
> in the near future:
> I am very interested in comments and suggested changes.

Looks pretty good generally...  a few things:
* As far as commit access, I think a gentleman's agreement is probably
workable.  Or it may end up being that we only want to allow the team
leads access to things like glibc/kernel and then there's a filter point
for the more pivotal packages to avoid concerns?
* Notification should happen now as all commits to your package get
mailed directly to you
* Maintenance and hosting of the arch is definitely within the purview
of the arch team.  There may be cases where Red Hat has a vested
interest in an arch and will help in finding hosting, etc, but it won't
be (quite) the same as it being a Fedora primary arch
* Storage is a bit of an issue at the moment, since we're already a bit
short; I think the storage to hold releases is one thing, but holding
everything intermediate may not be possible.  
* Spinning of trees for secondary arches is going to have to be done by
the arch teams.  That's the only way things scale.  Especially because
spinning release trees isn't "spin, fire and forget" -- there's testing
involved as well, and the hardware for testing isn't necessarily going
to be had by Fedora Release Engineering


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list