On Sun, Mar 18, 2007 at 06:43:18PM +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > 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. You mean anything that doesn't get on one of the spins will get banned off the ftp servers? ;=) -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpg72sc5xOCY.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
