On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 10:07:04AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote:
On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 16:00 -0700, Chris Weyl wrote:
> In other words, by only failing a build when a primary arch fails, we
> enable the inclusion of many other architectures for those who care
> about them, without imposing additional burdens on all maintainers
> (who may not care about them).
We have that already. The existing policy, allowing ExcludeArch but
requiring a bug to be filed, works extremely well.
> Otherwise, why bother making a distinction at all?
A question which had occurred to me also. We seem to be trying to
'solve' a problem which hasn't actually been demonstrated to exist yet.
For building (and scheduling) actual releases, there may be some point
in making the distinction. For the routine package builds, it seems
unnecessary.
There is a problem, while the ppc{,64} koji buildboxes aren't the slowest
thing in the world, in my experience they are 25% to 100%
slower than the i?86/x86_64 boxes (I'm always waiting on them for gcc/glibc
etc. builds) and with addition of sparc{,64} that will be still orders of
magnitude slower (not sure what hardware is planned for koji sparc* builds,
but even 8way UltraII is horribly slow). So for secondary arches
we really need async builds instead of sync builds.
Jakub