Rebuild exisitng errata for x86_64?

[Eric Rostetter]

Quoting Jesse Keating <jkeating at j2solutions.net>:

> packages, but the question remains, do we want to rebuild all previously
> released errata for x86_64, for releases that have x86_64 (FC1,2,3).

Yes, if possible, but this is something to be done "in the background,
at lower priority, as time permits."

In any case, I think we should _at least_ release all FC3 packages
for x86_64.  In other words, we shouldn't release new FC3 x86_64
without releasing also the older FC3 x86_64, for consistency.

> This could be a lot of work, and I'm concerned about the difference in
> build systems.  Releasing x86_64 versions of packages built with a
> different build system than that which produced the i386 versions just
> doesn't sit well with me.  Then again, neither does rebuilding EVERY
> errata on the new build system and re-releasing all the packages.

Understandable.  I'll let you and others who know more about this
decide.  That is why I said "yes, if possible" above rather than "yes."

> So I guess the bottom line question is, is there a significant amount of
> users in the community that need these older FC's updates built for
> x86_64, would be willing to do some basic QA on them, and would be
> willing to accept packages built on a different build system?

I am only interested in FC3 myself...  Sorry.

> Or should
> we just continue from this point forward with just FC3+ supporting
> x86_64?  (and set policy for if/when we get support for ppc packages)

I'll let those who know more about the build system issues decide.

> I welcome your input.
>
> --
> Jesse Keating RHCE      (geek.j2solutions.net)
> Fedora Legacy Team      (www.fedoralegacy.org)
> GPG Public Key          (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)

-- 
Eric Rostetter
The Department of Physics
The University of Texas at Austin

Go Longhorns!