On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 15:37 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Adam Williamson > <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 13:48 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > > > > > > > > Any i686 package that fails to build means it's failed for all primary > > > archs, because i686 is a primary arch. And a failed build means it > > > won't be tagged for compose so depending on the package it could hold > > > up composes. > > True, though I hadn't actually mentioned that scenario. But indeed. Say > > we needed a fix to dracut, pronto, to make the x86_64 cloud base image > > boot, but the build with the fix failed on i686: that would have to be > > dealt with somehow. Good point. > Oh and about terminology, it may be here where "block" gets reused as > a term in a confusing way. If dracut build fails on i686, that > "blocks" composes. No, not really, it only 'blocks composes' if the existing stable dracut build can't be used in the compose for some reason. But it is true to say that there are ways in which a primary arch that has no blocking images (as i686 currently is) can impact on the 'deliverability' of blocking images for other primary arches. Yes. And if we think that's a big problem, it is a very legitimate issue to use in support of the argument that i686 should be made a secondary arch. > But it's really a kind of claw back: zombie i686 is > grabbing the leg of other primary archs, and that stops the workflow. > > Making i686 secondary would prevent this? Yes it would. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
