On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 08:50:05AM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > On 07/11/2013 07:33 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > >Promotion is supposed to benefit Fedora, not the architecture being > >promoted. > > And you think it would not benefit Fedora. On the contrary, I think a solid ARM port benefits Fedora a great deal. > Today: ARM builds are queued by koji-shadow some period of time > after they complete successfully on primary. If a build fails then > the koji-shadow admin gets notified. If it's a real bug it gets > BZed, we work with the package maintainer, the bug is fixed, and we > move on. And if the bug isn't fixed, we move on anyway. > As primary: ARM builds would be queued at the same time as x86. If > a build fails the package maintainer gets notified. If it's an > ARM-specific bug the maintainer would get in touch with the ARM > team. The full details of this change are TBD and should be > discussed. And if the bug isn't fixed, we have a problem. > >I agree that that's the ideal case. If package maintainers are willing > >to volunteer their time to ensure their packages work on ARM then > >everything is easier and we all benefit. That doesn't seem to be the > >case yet. > > Oh? The llvm maintainer hasn't fixed llvmpipe. Nobody working on gcc has bootstrapped ada. > >What I'm saying is that making ARM a primary architecture isn't going to > >automatically make volunteers start caring about ARM, and so there > >should be evidence that the existing ARM porters can deal with the worst > >case scenario of supporting an arbitrary set of packages themselves. > > Perhaps it's inevitable, but I would like to avoid a reprisal of the > Richard Dawkins & Wendy Wright debate. What evidence are you asking > for? An ARM repository that is as close as practically possible in features and bugs to the x86 repository. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
