For your consideration: Secondary Architectures in Fedora
David Woodhouse
dwmw2 at infradead.org
Thu May 31 23:54:18 UTC 2007
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 19:35 -0400, Christopher Aillon wrote:
> Not quite. How do we that right now all of our builds in rawhide don't
> fail on s390 currently? We don't. Chances are they work, but maybe
> something in the rawhide compiler broke there. Assuming the s390
> compiler is broken, would you consider this a partially failed build if
> we haven't started a build on it and therefore can't know the problem
> exists? It succeeded on i386 and x86-64 and ppc and we push it to the
> repos.
>
> From a Red Hat perspective, it would be nice if we started doing side
> s390 builds so we can keep on top of any issues as we'll have to care
> about this when we branch for our next Enterprise offering. If it fails
> in our own side builds, we'd get notified but it wouldn't be a failure
> to the Fedora system because it just didn't start an s390 build at all.
> But when the Fedora build succeeds, it would be prudent for someone to
> rebuild the s390 package with the same changes.
>
> That is pretty much exactly what is being proposed. But automated.
Except we're not just talking about S390 as a secondary arch -- we're
talking about things like Alpha, SPARC, IA64 where people really are
actively trying to make a working distribution.
You're right that if we let some builds just silently fail and go ahead
anyway, that'll result in the affected repositories being a complete
mess. All the more reason why it should need at least a _trivial_ amount
of attention from the package maintainer before the build gets pushed
anyway. That's in _addition_ to the fact that it could well be a generic
problem which affects all architectures, just not in a way that happens
to cause a build failure on the primary architecture(s) with this phase
of the moon.
--
dwmw2
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list