On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 17:10 -0700, Chris Weyl wrote: > On 5/29/07, Tom spot Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 16:00 -0700, Chris Weyl wrote: > > > > > In other words, by only failing a build when a primary arch fails, we > > > enable the inclusion of many other architectures for those who care > > > about them, without imposing additional burdens on all maintainers > > > (who may not care about them). > > > > > > Otherwise, why bother making a distinction at all? > > > > Precisely. > > > > Now, when a build fails on a secondary arch, it won't be silent. Emails > > will go out to the architecture team, as well as a daily summary to > > fedora-devel-list on a per-arch basis (e.g. I built these packages > > sucessfully, I tried to build these, but they failed). > > Yah. I assume this is where the people interested in the secondary > arches step in -- each arch will have a SIG, SIGs will monitor > failures, investigate, and file bugs when they have a fix for a given > package? Something like that. > Sounds like a good process to me; opens up the buildsys to more arches > w/o imposing more work (on anyone who isn't wanting that work, at > least). That's a bit of bad statement. I'm not wanting to do work to fix things on x86, but I do. The purpose of secondary arches isn't to get people out of work. It's to allow the base to move forward for the majority of Fedora users. josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
