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

Re: For your consideration: Secondary Architectures in Fedora

On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 11:31:19AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
> 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
> suggest.
> >   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.

Hello David,

this should be combined with "arch-maintainers" who can checkin patches
across all packages if the changes do fix arch-specific code.

Keeping Fedora running on all arches is really a plus.


Florian La Roche

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