On Thu, 2007-06-14 at 07:37 -0400, Daniel Veillard wrote: > Right, sorry. I will go down in my hole to avoid this in any possible future. > I still think what you are suggesting in the remaining of your mail does not > match what I suggested, bahh, no big deal. You're right; it doesn't. Your suggestion (mostly) matches Spot's original proposal, which is at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/SecondaryArchitectures My proposal is slightly different -- I believe that Spot's original proposal is flawed, because if we make it so easy for the secondary architectures to end up with old or missing packages, we might as well not bother helping them at all. People have showed that they're _already_ capable of running entirely asynchronously and building Fedora for SPARC/Alpha/etc without any help from us at all. It's horrible, and you're constantly fighting to keep stuff in sync with 'Fedora', but it can be done. What Spot proposes really wouldn't be much better for them. I think that people are overestimating the 'burden' on package maintainers if we do synchronous builds. Note that I'm not talking about how beehive used to do it, where you have to resubmit the build if it fails. If the build fails on S390, you'd have the _option_ of declaring that it's really an arch-specific problem, and you'd be able to ship the already-completed packages anyway for the other architectures. You wouldn't even have to wait for it to rebuild. But you _would_ be expected to at least _glance_ at the failure and make a proper decision about the failure, rather than shipping the partially-failed build automatically. And while we wouldn't be _forcing_ package maintainers to do a proper job of maintaining portability, it would at least help to indicate expectations. I also believe that people are underestimating the amount of time that a build failure on one arch actually shows up a _generic_ problem which just happens to bite in some situations but not others. Sudden build failures on an arch which _used_ to build are something which the package maintainer really _should_ be looking at. -- dwmw2 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
