Jeremy Katz wrote:
On Mon, 2007-03-05 at 14:28 -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
On Monday 05 March 2007 01:54:26 pm Jeremy Katz wrote:
* 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
the sync and kicking off kinda come down to the same thing. The way we
have briefly talked about doing this is to have a koji hub at the
secondary arch site and have it talk to the main hub. which will do the
queueing of builds and sync things back to the main hub when built.
Yes and no -- that helps for packages, it doesn't help for ISOs. Or
live CDs.
these could be created close to the master buildsys and downloaded for
testing.
Building ISOs requires running buildinstall which requires running
arch-specific stuff. There's just no way around this. And I really
don't want to be in the situation where we have to have a box of the
arch in the colo for it to be a secondary arch. If that's the case, we
haven't succeeded.
Jeremy
Nothing's more complex than the extras updates :-D All we need to do is
say "SPARC Guys, your trusted. Tell us where you'd like to stage your
source / binaries / etc" Then we copy from there to the mirror. This
is just like what we have set up at duke in many regards. If we (Fedora
Project Proper) have to support and work and work to keep an arch up and
going then its not a secondary arch. We have to set up these projects
to succeed on their own. If they don't, then the community has spoken.
-Mike
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
