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

Re: For your consideration: Secondary Architectures in Fedora

On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 06:06 -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote:
>  Can we have them in parallel ? I'm thinking of asynchronous builds of
> what constitutes Fedora done on those box and error reports being
> raised to the packager or as bugzilla entries if they fail. That would
> be one start.

Daniel, I have a feeling you've managed to miss the _entirety_ of the
discussion that's gone before. You've presented a whole lot of rhetoric
about stuff which bears no relation to what's being proposed, and then
make a 'new' proposal which is very close to what Spot _did_ actually

>   But blocking the packager synchronously at build time is really not
> proper IMHO.

Why on earth not? Much of the time that a package _used_ to build and
now fails, it turns out to be a generic bug rather than really an
arch-specific bug. It would be very wrong to just automatically ship
such a partially-failed build, without any intervention from the
packager to make sure it's OK.

All I'm suggesting is that the packager should _look_ at the failure and
make an educated decision about whether it's an arch-specific bug or a
generic bug. If it's arch-specific and they don't care about the arch in
question, it would be trivial for them to file the necessary ExcludeArch
bug and push a button to ship the packages which already built, for the
architectures on which they _did_ build. You wouldn't even need to
rebuild with the ExcludeArch: in the specfile.

The only down-side of this is that it would take slightly longer for the
build to complete on all architectures. But the packages would be
available from koji immediately after the the build completes on each
architecture, and the actual push to the mirrors has huge amounts of
delay for other reasons _anyway_, so it really shouldn't be an issue.


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