On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 13:26 -0500, Christopher Blizzard wrote: > What's needed other than a set of output rpms and isos? From what I > remember of the meeting we had a few months ago we expected secondary > arch builds to happen on contributed machines, but wanted to host final > bits. That should be our target, right? I think the main technical things are (off the top of my head) * Backend storage. Probably fairly significant chunks as you're going to want to keep releases (tree + ISOs), development (tree at least), potentially test releases if they don't want/can't host themselves * Sync mechanism. We don't currently have a good way for these sorts of things to get their bits onto above backend storage. The "add an rsync to an internal server that can run as a cronjob" really only gets us so far. I expect that the secondary arches would far prefer a push mechanism. * Need a good way to kick off the secondary arch builds. This isn't the highest priority, but it is eventually needed Then, there are the more fuzzy things like * How do we get bugs reported and ensure that arch groups find out about bugs that are arch specific without adding much (if any) overhead for everyone else. * How do we make it easy for patches to flow in, although this problem with one SCM that's external. Although there's then a need for a policy around how to give commit access or not Jeremy _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
