On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 14:42 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > 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? Depends on how you look at it really. It's worth discussion anyway. > > Additional questions are: > > Good questions, here are my provisional answers: > > > Does FESCo have to ack the Architecture Leads? > > Yes. OK. > > 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. By that definition, the primary arches don't qualify either. They're built using RHEL + koji. Not that I really argue with the definition mind you. Just interesting from a primary vs. secondary requirements perspective. > > 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. Back in Nov. 2006, there was also the concept that FPB had to approve a secondary arch release before it could be called Fedora. Are we delegating that to FESCo? This, of course, implies that some form of review things occurs at some level. > > Are torrents/URLs to Secondary arch releases to be linked from the > > fedoraproject.org website assuming they are granted Fedora status? > > Yes. OK. josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
