On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 10:22 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > This may be a stupid (and Pandoraesque) question, so I'll apologize up > front for it, but it's honest at least: why is Aurora not part of > Fedora, as far as providing build tools, CVS space and such? Why is Aurora not part of Fedora? 1. Aurora is older than Fedora. We've been at this since RHL 7.2. 2. sparc breaks. A LOT. For example, right now, glibc won't build for sparc64 and gcc won't build for sparc32. These tend to be very pivotal to a buildtree. 2a. With an arch that breaks a lot, it requires a lot of attention. Attention that undoubtedly Red Hat is not willing to provide it for Fedora Core (nor do I fault them for this). Red Hat doesn't pay me to do Aurora, I do that because I'm independently insane. 2b. Even if somehow Fedora Core SPARC was resolved, the issue of handling sparc in Fedora Extras arises. Today, Dennis Gilmore does a great job of rebuilding the SRPMS from FE, but many of them don't work for sparc. Should maintainers have to support sparc like they do ppc/i386/x86_64? I have some proposals for handling architecture tiering, but I've not had the time nor the motivation to pursue them (since there is no FC SPARC solution yet). ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway: Red Hat Technical Team Lead || GPG ID: 93054260 Fedora Extras Steering Committee Member (RPM Standards and Practices) Aurora Linux Project Leader: http://auroralinux.org Lemurs, llamas, and sparcs, oh my! _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
