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

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

On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 07:02 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> They stopped because it led to a lot of weird package situations and
> mixed results.  It was not a very good situation, it only made
> you /think/ you were moving on correctly when you really weren't and
> should have rebuilt everything with the new version once it was fixed
> anyway instead of keeping going. 

Yes, I understand that there are disadvantages with that approach, just
as there are disadvantages with the new approach.

Nevertheless, if we're going to make it a frequent occurrence that
packages can go missing on secondary architectures, then we are going to
have to cope with that _somehow_. For the package in question to just
disappear isn't likely to be workable.

That's true even if we take the sensible option and require explicit
approval from the package owner before shipping a partially-failed

It's even more true if we do the insane thing and just let the
partially-failed builds out into the repository automatically. (Although
there's a school of thought that perhaps in that case in fact it becomes
less important, because the secondary arch folks might as well not
bother with us at all -- they'd not really be any better off than they
are at the moment, fending for themselves entirely.)


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