On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 08:50:05AM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 07/11/2013 07:33 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>Promotion is supposed to benefit Fedora, not the architecture being
And you think it would not benefit Fedora.
On the contrary, I think a solid ARM port benefits Fedora a great deal.
Today: ARM builds are queued by koji-shadow some period of time
after they complete successfully on primary. If a build fails then
the koji-shadow admin gets notified. If it's a real bug it gets
BZed, we work with the package maintainer, the bug is fixed, and we
And if the bug isn't fixed, we move on anyway.
As primary: ARM builds would be queued at the same time as x86. If
a build fails the package maintainer gets notified. If it's an
ARM-specific bug the maintainer would get in touch with the ARM
team. The full details of this change are TBD and should be
And if the bug isn't fixed, we have a problem.
>I agree that that's the ideal case. If package maintainers
>to volunteer their time to ensure their packages work on ARM then
>everything is easier and we all benefit. That doesn't seem to be the
The llvm maintainer hasn't fixed llvmpipe. Nobody working on gcc has
>What I'm saying is that making ARM a primary architecture
isn't going to
>automatically make volunteers start caring about ARM, and so there
>should be evidence that the existing ARM porters can deal with the worst
>case scenario of supporting an arbitrary set of packages themselves.
Perhaps it's inevitable, but I would like to avoid a reprisal of the
Richard Dawkins & Wendy Wright debate. What evidence are you asking
An ARM repository that is as close as practically possible in features
and bugs to the x86 repository.
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org