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

Re: Fedora Extras Development Build Report



On Sat, 2005-05-07 at 16:33 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-05-07 at 17:28 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > We did not build for ppc when Fedora Extras started.
> > Later x86_64 was added. And then ppc.
> > 
> > "Where we are" with regard to maintaining packages, is something we
> > need to find out...
> 
> Agreed. We really need to work with the same policy as Core does -- a
> build failure on one arch is a build failure on all.
I strongly disagree.

>  We can't let
> package versions just drift out of sync between architectures due to
> spurious failures. 
Are you aware about how much effort had been required to get packages
compiled on x86_64, when x86_64 was new? It took years.

Adding any new architecture will impose a similar footprint and will, if
a policy of "one arch blocks all" is implemented, this policy will block
packages on archs not being affected by the "blocking bug on one arch".

Also, once the number of architectures increases, the probability of
tripping such "arch specific bugs" will increase.

> It's bad enough in Core when people can just add ExcludeArch: to work
> around temporary problems and get a package through the build system. We
> really ought to have a policy of requiring a bug to be filed for every
> exclusion, even in Core. _Certainly_ we shouldn't be allowing a build to
> succeed for one architecture while it fails on others.
IMO, we should have a target architecture matrix to selectively build
packages for selected architectures.

Ralf



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