Dealing with PPC in Fedora 9(+)

[David Woodhouse]

On Mon, 2007-11-12 at 14:58 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 14:40:31 -0500
> David Woodhouse <dwmw2 at infradead.org> wrote:
> 
> > I don't believe it's realistic to make changes to the hosting and
> > mirroring arrangements either -- let's stick with the plan of keeping
> > them in the 'normal tree' which you called a last resort.
> > 
> > We'll plan to have each spin ready on time, so it can go out fairly
> > much synchronously with the i386 and x86_64 releases -- and more to
> > the point, with precisely the same package set. If for some reason we
> > slip, let's impose a rule that we may not ship any packages in the
> > PPC spin which are not in rawhide (for the RCs) or f9-updates (for
> > the release).
> > 
> > OK?
> 
> This seems a reasonable compromise all together.  I can be happy with
> this for Fedora 9.  Hopefully by the time 9 is let loose, we'll have
> had at least one other full fledged secondary arch up and running and
> proving that the method can work.

I suspect this is going to work a whole lot better if I have commit
access to anaconda, kudzu, rhpl, booty, etc.

At the moment, the round-trip time between me generating a patch to
something like kudzu and seeing it in a testable rawhide build is
somewhat suboptimal.

I don't mean to complain -- I know people are busy and have better
things to do than commit my patches and kick off builds so that I can
get on with testing rawhide. But people are going to be busy in the
run-up to te releases too, when I most want my fixes to be getting into
builds promptly.

So it's probably best if I can be a little more self-sufficient in that
respect, by having commit access to both upstream and package
repositories and being able to do builds (at least for rawhide). Please.

Actually, we've spoken often of "arch teams" having commit access to
_all_ packages. Is that feasible?

-- 
dwmw2