On Sun, 2007-03-18 at 11:30 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Sunday 18 March 2007 08:05:37 David Woodhouse wrote: > > 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. > > By merging all the packages into one big collection we can't > segregate "Extras" and "Core" anymore for decisions such as build for ppc64 > or not. Every package will build for every arch unless explicitly told not > to, and if told, there is supposed to be bug regarding this according to our > guidelines (which you wanted IIRC). This means we need to turn on ppc64 in > the new build system to keep the current "Core" packages building there, and > we need to bootstrap the rest of the packages so that they can start building > ppc64 without causing failures all over the place. This is true. I was just suggesting that we don't necessarily need to rush out and do a mass rebuild of all Extras packages before F7 just to create ppc64 versions of them, since those _wouldn't_ be likely to end up in the "ppc" compose; they'd only be in the pure ppc64 tree which isn't a product we release; it's just the same as the unshipped ia64, s390 rawhide trees. -- dwmw2 -- 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
