On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Chris Murphy <lists(a)colorremedies.com> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Adam Williamson
<adamwill(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 13:48 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> Any i686 package that fails to build means it's failed for all primary
>> archs, because i686 is a primary arch. And a failed build means it
>> won't be tagged for compose so depending on the package it could hold
>> up composes.
>
> True, though I hadn't actually mentioned that scenario. But indeed. Say
> we needed a fix to dracut, pronto, to make the x86_64 cloud base image
> boot, but the build with the fix failed on i686: that would have to be
> dealt with somehow. Good point.
Oh and about terminology, it may be here where "block" gets reused as
a term in a confusing way. If dracut build fails on i686, that
"blocks" composes. But it's really a kind of claw back: zombie i686 is
grabbing the leg of other primary archs, and that stops the workflow.
Making i686 secondary would prevent this?
Concretely, in today's existing infrastructure and world, yes. A
secondary arch does builds on a separate koji instance and failing
builds there don't impact the builds in primary.
However, a while ago Dennis proposed a different world (with related
infrastructure changes) where that wouldn't necessarily be the case.
I forget where we had the discussion about it. It might have been the
rel-eng list. He hasn't pushed it much publicly though, and I don't
want to speak for him.
josh