Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
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).
I see no reason here not to have stuff like Aurora or AlphaCore as
second tier architectures that interested contributors can push forward.
First step would be to provide Sparc machines to the buildsystem and let
external contributors work on fixing stuff.
Rahul
_______________________________________________
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
