For your consideration: Secondary Architectures in Fedora

David Woodhouse dwmw2 at
Thu May 31 23:24:23 UTC 2007

On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 19:15 -0400, Christopher Aillon wrote:
> There is no build for i386 if something fails.  As in any RPMs that may 
> have been created get deleted, the builds for any unfinished subtasks 
> are cancelled, and appropriate fail notices sent out to the CLI and via 
> e-mail.
> Doing this any other way will lead to inconsistencies in the primary 
> repos.  The latest foo would be foo-1.2 on one arch and maybe foo-1.3 on 
> another.  Having these inconsistencies in the build root will then 
> become one big mess as nobody would be able to sanely say what version 
> of foo any given package would be compiled against -- and might cause 
> more failures if API/ABI changes in the foo package. 

Nevertheless, this is what's being proposed. Even if a build fails on
one architecture, it would run to completion on others. 

You may be right that the whole thing would cause a huge mess, but in
fact the debate wasn't about that -- we were all assuming that that's
how it would work, and all we were _actually_ arguing about was whether
the push of the partially-failed package should be _automatic_, or
whether the packager should at least get a chance to look at the failure
and _decide_ to push it anyway.

I maintain that automatically pushing a partially-failed package is
insane, and the packager should at least _look_ at the failures and make
a conscious decision to push whatever did manage to build. The result
when they make that decision would probably still not be pretty, but at
least it would involve human intervention, and hopefully wouldn't happen
quite so often.


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list