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

Re: For your consideration: Secondary Architectures in Fedora



On 5/29/07, Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa redhat com> wrote:
On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 16:00 -0700, Chris Weyl wrote:

> In other words, by only failing a build when a primary arch fails, we
> enable the inclusion of many other architectures for those who care
> about them, without imposing additional burdens on all maintainers
> (who may not care about them).
>
> Otherwise, why bother making a distinction at all?

Precisely.

Now, when a build fails on a secondary arch, it won't be silent. Emails
will go out to the architecture team, as well as a daily summary to
fedora-devel-list on a per-arch basis (e.g. I built these packages
sucessfully, I tried to build these, but they failed).

Yah.  I assume this is where the people interested in the secondary
arches step in -- each arch will have a SIG, SIGs will monitor
failures, investigate, and file bugs when they have a fix for a given
package?

Sounds like a good process to me; opens up the buildsys to more arches
w/o imposing more work (on anyone who isn't wanting that work, at
least).

                                    -Chris
--
Chris Weyl
Ex astris, scientia


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