On Sun, Mar 18, 2007 at 12:05:37PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Thu, 2007-03-15 at 10:57 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > > > > > And so we need to queue rebuilds for all of our packages? > > > > I'm not sure on that one. If we can manage to build what we have already > > built just for ppc64 without any bumps, that would be nice. > > We've never bothered shipping 64-bit versions of Extras packages before > -- unless you suddenly find an overriding reason to do so, I don't see > any reason to rebuild for F7 just to add a 64-bit binary package which > we don't need to ship anyway. 36% of FC6/ppc Core are shipped as 64 bit packages, which means that there is quite often the demand/desire to do so. It is very unlikely that the demand in Extras is 0. The fact that Extras didn't build/ship 64 bits for ppc was probably more a technical one, but since the worlds unite, anything that was possible with a former Core package will be possible with a former Extras package, too. 36% also indicates that not all ppc packages make sense to build as 64 bits, but rather about a third. This looks like the packagers need to decide on a package by package basis and communicate this to the buildsystem, either by the package database or some metafile in the sources. But since this mechanism has to have been available to Core, we just need to let packagers know how to trigger this, if they want it. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgprLvDopC8ip.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
-- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
