On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 12:05 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > I'm only suggesting that the packager should need to _look_ at the > > failure before filing the required ExcludeArch bug and pushing a 'ship > > it anyway' button. I'm not saying that we should force them to start the > > build from scratch again like we do at the moment. > > I agree. This is the largest objection I have to the current proposal. This is a significant workflow change. How should we force the packager to look at the failure before letting the packages push? > Additional questions are: Good questions, here are my provisional answers: > Does FESCo have to ack the Architecture Leads? Yes. > What exactly constitutes the buildsystem? E.g. if koji is running on a > different distribution, it's not building the packages with the same > toolset that the primary architectures are on. (I realize there is a > chicken/egg scenario here). Fedora + koji constitutes the buildsystem. The secondary arch team may need to create a manual bootstrap of a Fedora environment before they're ready to build packages. > How are Secondary arch releases suppose to go about getting official > "Fedora" status? The secondary arch team exists, has a working koji buildsystem, is okayed by FESCo, and has packages (and or trees) ready by either the main Fedora timeline or a reasonable timeline defined by the secondary arch team. > Are torrents/URLs to Secondary arch releases to be linked from the > fedoraproject.org website assuming they are granted Fedora status? Yes. ~spot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
