On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 19:35 -0400, Christopher Aillon wrote: > Not quite. How do we that right now all of our builds in rawhide don't > fail on s390 currently? We don't. Chances are they work, but maybe > something in the rawhide compiler broke there. Assuming the s390 > compiler is broken, would you consider this a partially failed build if > we haven't started a build on it and therefore can't know the problem > exists? It succeeded on i386 and x86-64 and ppc and we push it to the > repos. > > From a Red Hat perspective, it would be nice if we started doing side > s390 builds so we can keep on top of any issues as we'll have to care > about this when we branch for our next Enterprise offering. If it fails > in our own side builds, we'd get notified but it wouldn't be a failure > to the Fedora system because it just didn't start an s390 build at all. > But when the Fedora build succeeds, it would be prudent for someone to > rebuild the s390 package with the same changes. > > That is pretty much exactly what is being proposed. But automated. Except we're not just talking about S390 as a secondary arch -- we're talking about things like Alpha, SPARC, IA64 where people really are actively trying to make a working distribution. You're right that if we let some builds just silently fail and go ahead anyway, that'll result in the affected repositories being a complete mess. All the more reason why it should need at least a _trivial_ amount of attention from the package maintainer before the build gets pushed anyway. That's in _addition_ to the fact that it could well be a generic problem which affects all architectures, just not in a way that happens to cause a build failure on the primary architecture(s) with this phase of the moon. -- dwmw2 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
