On Thu, 2016-04-21 at 12:44 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 12:32 AM, Adam Williamson adamwill@fedoraproject.org wrote:
On Wed, 2016-04-20 at 11:43 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
if a dracut i686 build fails the dracut build fails and nothing changes, the compose is not blocked. your view here is not quite the reality of the world. moving i686 to secondary does not change that.
well, wait, moving i686 to secondary *does* change that, doesn't it? If i686 is secondary, and a dracut i686 build fails, then the dracut x86_64 and armhfp builds will still get tagged, right? Just like right now, if dracut fails to build on aarch64 but succeeds on the primary arches, those primary arch builds get tagged.
No, because we still need i686 in x86_64 multilib because of some proprietary "stuff" (no idea, I don't use it)
Oh, right, so in theory it would, except multilib complicates things. Makes sense.
particullary in the way releng is looking to redefine secondary arches.
I would like to read more about this 'redefinition'. Where can I?
In Flock Rochester talks. It was discussed in Dennis's rel-eng talk, that should all be on video, and in the hallway quite widely where I discussed it with a lot of groups/individuals.
Basically for example it currently makes sense to say promote aarch64 for server but not workstation (although that's starting to actually move somewhere) and cloud so how do you define primary and secondary? Well basically you remove koji from that definition and define it on the product outputs. With i686 discussing/doing this for cloud/server that is already basically happening. This is already done internally for brew (internal brew for those that don't know) where all architectures are built in the one build system.
I'm fine with that, but if we're going to do that, I'd rather retire the 'primary' / 'secondary' terms as I think they'd only cause confusion.