ppc64 builds

[David Woodhouse]

On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 11:30 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Sunday 18 March 2007 08:05:37 David Woodhouse wrote:
> > We've never bothered shipping 64-bit versions of Extras packages before
> > -- unless you suddenly find an overriding reason to do so, I don't see
> > any reason to rebuild for F7 just to add a 64-bit binary package which
> > we don't need to ship anyway.
> 
> By merging all the packages into one big collection we can't 
> segregate "Extras" and "Core" anymore for decisions such as build for ppc64 
> or not.  Every package will build for every arch unless explicitly told not 
> to, and if told, there is supposed to be bug regarding this according to our 
> guidelines (which you wanted IIRC).  This means we need to turn on ppc64 in 
> the new build system to keep the current "Core" packages building there, and 
> we need to bootstrap the rest of the packages so that they can start building 
> ppc64 without causing failures all over the place. 

This is true. I was just suggesting that we don't necessarily need to
rush out and do a mass rebuild of all Extras packages before F7 just to
create ppc64 versions of them, since those _wouldn't_ be likely to end
up in the "ppc" compose; they'd only be in the pure ppc64 tree which
isn't a product we release; it's just the same as the unshipped ia64,
s390 rawhide trees.

-- 
dwmw2