For your consideration: Secondary Architectures in Fedora

David Woodhouse dwmw2 at
Thu May 31 19:02:58 UTC 2007

On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 15:43 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> David Woodhouse (dwmw2 at said: 
> > It might be OK to allow the bug to be filed _after_ the build failure,
> > explaining the reason for the failure and why it's outside the
> > capabilities of the package maintainer to fix it. Then the package could
> > be pushed for the architectures for which it _did_ build. But I don't
> > see any real advantage to that over the current system; it's just more
> > complexity. 
> Because, realistically, I don't want secondary arches to hold up
> development work in the cases where:
> - gcc breaks for X number of days
> - the architecture maintainers go AWOL

Obviously. The packages affected by this just get an ExcludeArch and
development goes on as before. The arch team cleans it up once they come
back and/or once the compiler is fixed.

> - the hosting provider for said secondary arches goes AWOL 

If the hosting provider for secondary architectures goes AWOL then it's
not unreasonable to have them fall out of the build system. 

Let's be clear here -- when you say 'hold up development' above, you're
talking about the time it takes to file a bug, add an ExcludeArch: and
resubmit the build.

Or, if we go for allowing retrospective ExcludeArch bugs to be filed,
which is what I suggested, you're talking about even less than that --
just the time it takes for a maintainer to look at the new failure
(which any half-competent maintainer will want to at least _glance_ at
anyway), decide that he doesn't care, and file the bug. Then the
existing build gets pushed for the architectures on which it _did_ build


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list