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

[Dennis Gilmore]

On Tuesday 10 July 2007 3:15:37 pm Josh Boyer wrote:
> 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:
> > > 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
> perspective.

Actually the primary arch builders are all running FC-6 as is 
koji.fedoraproject.org  

> > > 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.

I think FESCo is the correct place for the decision.