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

Re: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/SecondaryArchitectures



On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 12:05 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:

> > I'm only suggesting that the packager should need to _look_ at the
> > failure before filing the required ExcludeArch bug and pushing a 'ship
> > it anyway' button. I'm not saying that we should force them to start the
> > build from scratch again like we do at the moment.
> 
> I agree.  This is the largest objection I have to the current proposal.

This is a significant workflow change. How should we force the packager
to look at the failure before letting the packages push?

> Additional questions are:

Good questions, here are my provisional answers:

> Does FESCo have to ack the Architecture Leads?

Yes.

> What exactly constitutes the buildsystem?  E.g. if koji is running on a
> different distribution, it's not building the packages with the same
> toolset that the primary architectures are on. (I realize there is a
> chicken/egg scenario here).

Fedora + koji constitutes the buildsystem. The secondary arch team may
need to create a manual bootstrap of a Fedora environment before they're
ready to build packages.

> How are Secondary arch releases suppose to go about getting official
> "Fedora" status?

The secondary arch team exists, has a working koji buildsystem, is
okayed by FESCo, and has packages (and or trees) ready by either the
main Fedora timeline or a reasonable timeline defined by the secondary
arch team.

> Are torrents/URLs to Secondary arch releases to be linked from the
> fedoraproject.org website assuming they are granted Fedora status?

Yes.

~spot


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