Quoting Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
packages, but the question remains, do we want to rebuild all previously released errata for x86_64, for releases that have x86_64 (FC1,2,3).
Yes, if possible, but this is something to be done "in the background, at lower priority, as time permits." In any case, I think we should _at least_ release all FC3 packages for x86_64. In other words, we shouldn't release new FC3 x86_64 without releasing also the older FC3 x86_64, for consistency.
This could be a lot of work, and I'm concerned about the difference in build systems. Releasing x86_64 versions of packages built with a different build system than that which produced the i386 versions just doesn't sit well with me. Then again, neither does rebuilding EVERY errata on the new build system and re-releasing all the packages.
Understandable. I'll let you and others who know more about this decide. That is why I said "yes, if possible" above rather than "yes."
So I guess the bottom line question is, is there a significant amount of users in the community that need these older FC's updates built for x86_64, would be willing to do some basic QA on them, and would be willing to accept packages built on a different build system?
I am only interested in FC3 myself... Sorry.
Or should we just continue from this point forward with just FC3+ supporting x86_64? (and set policy for if/when we get support for ppc packages)
I'll let those who know more about the build system issues decide.
I welcome your input. -- Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
-- Eric Rostetter The Department of Physics The University of Texas at Austin Go Longhorns! -- fedora-legacy-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
