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

Re: random comments about secondary arch proposal



On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 11:43:07AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> 
> 
> On 14.06.2007 19:40, Christopher Blizzard wrote:
> 
> > Primary arch definition: need to make sure that part of the
> > responsibility is that individual maintainers are required to make sure
> > their stuff builds on all those arches.
> 
> -1 -- Fedora Extras had lots of maintainers that are no programmers
> and/or have only access to i386.

Don't they have access to *build* their package through koji by
definition on all archs?

> Those maintainers are Fedora maintainers these days. Saying they are
> "required to make sure their stuff builds on all primary arches" would
> increase the burden on the maintainer drastically. I think that's
> totally the wrong way forward.
> 
> Further: if I would read something like that before becoming a
> contributor I'd say "hey, that's hard stuff; I know my knowledge is not
> enough to do that should I even run into a situation where something
> doesn't build on PPC; well, then I won't become a contributor for
> Fedora. Have fun guys, bye".

But pcc is not a primary arch, or is it? I thought only i386/x86_64
would get the quality stamp "primary arch". :)

I would go as far as to suggest test boxes on i386/x86_64
(e.g. primary archs) for packages to test their koji builds on in case
they want to, but don't have the archs available otherwise. Sure, some
packages like the kernel and glibc can't just be tested on a rmeote
machine, but I hope the maintainers of these packages have access to
more than just an i386 system ;=)
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

Attachment: pgpPtkIzTzQru.pgp
Description: PGP signature


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