On Thu, 2020-08-06 at 18:43 -0400, Robbie Harwood wrote: > 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. Right, I did miss that or, sorry. > > > > 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 That page is out of date.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. Sure, we should probably just call them "koji arches" or something... -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ 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
