For your consideration: Secondary Architectures in Fedora
dwmw2 at infradead.org
Thu May 31 22:52:46 UTC 2007
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 18:38 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> David Woodhouse (dwmw2 at infradead.org) said:
> On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 15:43 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > > 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
> > > - the hosting provider for said secondary arches goes AWOL
> > 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.
Well, that's all the holdup there'd be. Possibly even less, if we allow
the option to retrospectively file the bug and just push the packages of
the partially-failed build for the architectures on which it _did_
So either that's what you're talking about, or you're talking nonsense.
Which is it?
More information about the fedora-devel-list