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

Re: [fab] Architecture Policy.

On Wednesday 15 November 2006 07:20, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> That made we wondering: hey, sounds nice. And that makes it possible to
> get rid of parts from the "secondary arch" concept again IMHO. If a arch
> is ready and tested by the arch maintainers: go ship it together with
> x86 and x86_64. If not let the maintainers of arch foo add further fixes
> to the fc7 branch of the packages and let them ship their "FCx for arch
> foo" when they become ready. They just have to be sure that they apply
> their fixes to both FCx and devel in that case. But I'm sure they will ;)
> Or am I missing something here?

You're not missing anything.  We did this for x86_64, it shipped as the 
release+updates.  So long as you're composing your spin from say FC7 shipped 
srpms, and FC7-updates shipped srpms, there shouldn't be a reason you can't 
call your arch release FC7.

I'll reply to David's post when I have more time, just do note that we will 
_not_ make any changes to any arches until the shadowbuild feature is in 
place and functional.

Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora

Attachment: pgpuGDZjMfqIk.pgp
Description: PGP signature

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