On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 4:27 PM, Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 15:23 -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: >> > >> > >> > > >> > > From my limited perspective, such non-functional failure held up >> > > release when it violated a release criterion in effect because that >> > > non-functionality became coupled with image blocking, i.e. if kernel >> > > doesn't function, then image doesn't function/is DOA, DOA images are a >> > > release criteria violation, therefore block. Correct? Or is there some >> > > terminology nuance here that I'm still missing in the sequence? > >> > No, even in this case there is no release blocking impact, because >> > nothing release blocking is broken by the bug. The i686 images are not >> > release blocking, end of story. Even if they are completely DOA, that >> > does not block release. > >> Yes, I meant i686 in the past tense. >> >> OK so I think I get it. i686 is officially primary, but in practice >> it's at best secondary. > > NONONONO SEE THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT > > It is primary. That's all. It is a primary arch. In all the actual > meanings of that term. It is not 'in practice' secondary. It is > primary. "In practice secondary" is a bad way to describe what you're > trying to say and just confuses things. Please don't. :) OK to me it seems like some kind of loophole has opened up here. Since the critical packages build OK, composes continue. If such a package didn't build, composes would stop. But the backend effect is the same either way, the binary execution on i686 is fatal. Alpha has shipped without i686, and we've heard crickets and maybe a couple of zombie moans (if that). Do we ship beta and final without it working? It's maybe not yet ridiculous, but I think everyone would agree if Fedora 24 ships without any i686 media at all, considering i686 a primary architecture is kinda funny. You know, funny like the body out in the middle of the street, that each time someone brave enough goes to check on the pulse just comes back and shrugs because they don't really know so they just leave the body out there. "Hey maybe he'll stand up next week!" https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures When I read that, i686 sure doesn't seem like it's primary. But you're right, it's definitely not secondary. > >> And that should be made official. TBD whether >> there's even enough people power and momentum to support it as >> secondary. > > If people want to lobby for i686 to be made a secondary arch, in the > true meaning of that term, I'm completely fine with that. I just want > to make sure anyone who says it is actually clear on what it means, and > that it is, in fact, what they want. Agreed. -- Chris Murphy _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
