Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > Neal Gompa wrote: >> Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Robbie Harwood wrote: >>>> Elliott Sales de Andrade <quantum.analyst@xxxxxxxxx> writes: >>>> >>>>> Now that ppc64 is gone, s390x is the only big-endian architecture >>>>> left. Bugs around endianness are not usually difficult to fix, >>>>> _if_ I can debug it and see where exactly the problem is. However, >>>>> this requires a tedious guess-a-patch, try a scratch build, check >>>>> the result, rinse and repeat. >>>>> >>>>> Mock (with --forcearch) is completely useless for this. The >>>>> programs just crash during the build in such a way that I can't >>>>> even use `catchsegv`, and gdb is unusable in the container. And >>>>> besides, the programs don't actually crash on real s390x anyway.. >>>>> >>>>> Just like we have test machines for other less used architectures >>>>> [1], I am wondering if there is some way we can spin up a test >>>>> machine for s390x? >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Machine_Resources_For_Package_Maintainers >>>> >>>> It's very strange to me that having test hardware available isn't a >>>> requirement for being a Primary architecture, or for that >>>> architecture being present in koji. IMO we should change that >>>> going forward. >>> >>> s390x isn't a primary arch. It's an alternative arch. That's true, which is why I had the "or". I'd like it to be a requirement for either/both. >>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures >> >> That page is out of date. All architectures are effectively primary >> now, since failures for any arch block builds from releasing in Koji. > > We still draw a distinction between the two, it just doesn't have that > dimension to it any more. The page even explains this in its definition > at the top. The distinction is rather smaller now, but still there. > > In the release criteria we've mostly switched to using the term > "release-blocking arches", and s390x isn't one of those either. :) You're right, I'm being loose with language. Neal's point is what I'm trying to articulate: whatever the formal position is, we as packagers have to care about making this architecture work, since our builds won't go through if it doesn't. Thanks, --Robbie
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
