Rebuild exisitng errata for x86_64?

[Rahul Sundaram]

Jesse Keating wrote:

>So with the new build software that we're having good success with we
>can produce x86_64 packages (and with future hardware donations ppc
>packages too).  We've been spinning all FC3 updates with x86_64
>packages, but the question remains, do we want to rebuild all previously
>released errata for x86_64, for releases that have x86_64 (FC1,2,3).
>This could be a lot of work, and I'm concerned about the difference in
>build systems.  Releasing x86_64 versions of packages built with a
>different build system than that which produced the i386 versions just
>doesn't sit well with me.  Then again, neither does rebuilding EVERY
>errata on the new build system and re-releasing all the packages.
>
>So I guess the bottom line question is, is there a significant amount of
>users in the community that need these older FC's updates built for
>x86_64, would be willing to do some basic QA on them, and would be
>willing to accept packages built on a different build system?  Or should
>we just continue from this point forward with just FC3+ supporting
>x86_64?  (and set policy for if/when we get support for ppc packages)
>
>I welcome your input.
>  
>
So perhaps an obvious question is could Red Hat internal build systems 
used by Fedora Core or the ones used for  Fedora Extras be spared a few 
cycles for Fedora legacy on x86_64/PPC or do you want to keep the 
infrastructure independent?. If we are waiting for the community to 
donate time, money or resources to the project we need to list what 
exactly is required for them to participate. While the QA procedures for 
example are documented, the requirement for a PPC system is not. The 
website needs a highlighted list of such documentation.

-- 
Rahul