ppc64 builds

[Axel Thimm]

On Sun, Mar 18, 2007 at 06:43:18PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote:
> 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.

You mean anything that doesn't get on one of the spins will get banned
off the ftp servers? ;=)
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20070318/fbc3d0cd/attachment.sig>