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

Re: [fab] Secondary Arches



On Wed, 2006-11-15 at 17:33 -0500, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-11-14 at 20:11 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > That being said, I agree with spot.  There are two key issues that are
> > essentially taking a great idea and sinking it immediately.  In order
> > for secondary arches to really work, I believe the arch teams need to be
> > able to host repositories along side the primary arches on
> > fedoraproject.org, and binary isos for the arches (if available) should
> > also be hosted.
> 
> While in I agree that we _want_ to be able to do this, do we want to
> hold up any progress on secondary arches on a) ensuring available
> space[1] and b) setting up a sane[2] infrastructure for handling the
> putting up of the arch trees/ISOs?  I don't personally think so.

What progress?  Seriously.  Take two of the proposed secondary arches.
Sparc isn't held up because basically Aurora is doing about 90% of the
work already anyway.  It's just doesn't have the Fedora name.  Making
those builds use the Fedora buildsys (via shadow builds) and putting
those rpms on the fedoraproject.org servers is the final step in the
evolution of that project.

Then look at PPC.  How can you expect me to believe that taking an arch
that _already_ has storage and ISOs and just dropping that off of
fedoraproject.org because the buildsys can now send out shadow builds is
progress?

> [snip easily avoidable bit :-]

You snipped something I wish you would have commented on.  The wiki page
has "we can't BUILD these packages because we don't have the hardware"
as reason to not host the builds.  Explain to me why that matters if
those exact same builds are good enough to carry the Fedora name?

> >   However, it hints at another
> > issue which is the fact that people go to http://fedoraproject.org/ to
> > download Fedora.  If they now have to go to foo.bar.com to download it,
> > you lose brand distinction.
> 
> Except that even now to download Fedora, you go to mirror.kernel.org (or
> other local mirror site of your choice).  We're not saying that we're
> not going to prominently link on the "Download Fedora" page.

For ISOs.  For yum repos, we'd lose the mirroring structure already in
place for Fedora.  I find that to be quite bad.

> [1] And sending 160GB drives doesn't help ;-)  That's not the sort of
> available and mirrorable space that's really needed to be able to work
> within the existing infrastructure we've got for hosting content

Then tell me what is.  I want to know.  What _would_ you need to keep
the secondary arch builds on fedoraproject.org?

> [2] I really don't want more instances along the lines of how Extras
> packages get up now.  In fact, I hope that we manage to "fix" that with
> some of the other pieces in play.

I don't follow what you mean here.

And here's another question... where do bugs for secondary arches get
reported?  Is the Fedora bugzilla still used?  Or will arches be
required create and host their own bugzilla instances?

josh


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