On Tuesday 10 July 2007 3:15:37 pm Josh Boyer wrote: > 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: > > > 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. Actually the primary arch builders are all running FC-6 as is koji.fedoraproject.org > > > 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. I think FESCo is the correct place for the decision. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
