[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/SecondaryArchitectures

On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 14:42 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 12:05 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > I'm only suggesting that the packager should need to _look_ at the
> > > failure before filing the required ExcludeArch bug and pushing a 'ship
> > > it anyway' button. I'm not saying that we should force them to start the
> > > build from scratch again like we do at the moment.
> > 
> > I agree.  This is the largest objection I have to the current proposal.
> This is a significant workflow change. How should we force the packager
> to look at the failure before letting the packages push?

Depends on how you look at it really.  It's worth discussion anyway.

> > Additional questions are:
> Good questions, here are my provisional answers:
> > Does FESCo have to ack the Architecture Leads?
> Yes.


> > What exactly constitutes the buildsystem?  E.g. if koji is running on a
> > different distribution, it's not building the packages with the same
> > toolset that the primary architectures are on. (I realize there is a
> > chicken/egg scenario here).
> Fedora + koji constitutes the buildsystem. The secondary arch team may
> need to create a manual bootstrap of a Fedora environment before they're
> ready to build packages.

By that definition, the primary arches don't qualify either.  They're
built using RHEL + koji.  Not that I really argue with the definition
mind you.  Just interesting from a primary vs. secondary requirements

> > How are Secondary arch releases suppose to go about getting official
> > "Fedora" status?
> The secondary arch team exists, has a working koji buildsystem, is
> okayed by FESCo, and has packages (and or trees) ready by either the
> main Fedora timeline or a reasonable timeline defined by the secondary
> arch team.

Back in Nov. 2006, there was also the concept that FPB had to approve a
secondary arch release before it could be called Fedora.  Are we
delegating that to FESCo?  This, of course, implies that some form of
review things occurs at some level.

> > Are torrents/URLs to Secondary arch releases to be linked from the
> > fedoraproject.org website assuming they are granted Fedora status?
> Yes.



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]