For your consideration: Secondary Architectures in Fedora
dwmw2 at infradead.org
Wed May 30 14:43:49 UTC 2007
On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 10:32 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> I just simply don't agree with you. I've _seen_ it hinder the ability to get
> a release out,
That's irrelevant -- I already said that handling _releases_ separately
makes some sense.
> or a package update out. I've _seen_ packages sit unbuildable
> for hours if not days until the one person with arch specific knowledge can
> look into whats going on.
Got examples? It only takes a moment to file a bug, add ExcludeArch and
resubmit the package -- there's no way that can take "days", even for an
OOo build. You seem to be confusing the question at hand with something
> Every new package will have to be 'bootstrapped' into an arch.
Also irrelevant. It's hardly difficult to have ExcludeArch: or
ExclusiveArch: on a new package when you're first importing it, if it
requires arch-specific bootstrapping. And the bug needs to be filed.
> I can't expect new Fedora contributors to be completely
> stalled on getting software into Fedora, into the hands of millions of users
> simply because the software doesn't build for some obscure arch that somebody
> is working on getting going for Fedora, that has at most a couple hundred
Now you're just being silly -- "completely stalled" is a very strange
choice of words to describe the fairly simple requirement of adding
'ExcludeArch: foo' into the specfile and filing a bug explaining the
need to do so.
And of course 'arch that somebody is working on getting going' is
complete nonsense, since such an arch wouldn't be in the build system
yet anyway. Only once we have a full set of packages bootstrapped would
we add it, presumably.
More information about the fedora-devel-list