For a little background, yesterday we had a very long discussion of a bug[1] during the blocker bug meeting. The quick overview of that bug is that Firefox failed to build on some non-x86 architectures, so the package maintainer opted to stop building Firefox on anything but i686 and x86_64. This had the cascading effect of causing the alternative architecture composes to fail (including ARM/XFCE). During that meeting, I argued that the specific firefox bug didn't violate any criteria and that we should create a new bug[2] and mark that one as a blocker. However, I think I argued my contradicting example a bit too well and it was misconstrued that I was suggesting that we drop Firefox on alternative architectures and call that a solution. My point was mostly that I wanted us blocking on a bug that described the failed criteria, not dictating a specific solution. I went digging through the criteria to try to find something that I could cite to get the Firefox issue back onto the blocker list (because on reflection *do* think it's extremely serious and I've considered taking it to FESCo for their override). However, it seems that our blocker criteria do not describe one institutional guideline that we've been trying to follow: that alternative architectures should be delivering the same content as the "primary" architectures. What I would like to propose (wordsmithing welcome) is an addendum to the Beta criteria under the Installer->Default Package Set requirements: "The default package set installed from blocking media must be the same on all architectures for that Edition, Spin or netinstall except for packages whose sole purpose is hardware enablement for one or more architectures." Breaking it down, I think we should have an explicit criterion that installing the default package set for e.g. XFCE spin on armv7 must be the same set of packages you would get in a default install of e.g. XFCE spin on x86_64. If there are specific examples of where there are known (non-hardware-enablement) packages for which this is impossible, I'd suggest adding a clause like "FESCo will maintain a list of packages exempt from this requirement". So I'd like for us to consider including this requirement for F26 Beta (though I realize time is a little short on that score). If Fedora QA feels that it's too late for us to add this criterion, I'll take the specific matter of the Firefox builds to FESCo. I do think we should set a precedent here and document it for the future. [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1443938 [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1448923
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ test mailing list -- test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
