On Tuesday, April 19, 2016 3:37:05 PM CDT 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. 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? if a dracut i686 build fails the dracut build fails and nothing changes, the compose is not blocked. your view here is not quite the reality of the world. moving i686 to secondary does not change that. particullary in the way releng is looking to redefine secondary arches. It is also the only way we have to not force us to drop i686 being multilib on x86_64 Dennis
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
