Re: ARM Primary FESCO discussion results, round 1

[Brendan Conoboy <blc@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 03/19/2012 09:30 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> > Being a PA carries the obligation that all packages in Fedora will be
> > available. The proposed avenue of making broken packages temporarily
> > excludearch is questionable and needs work.
>
> The thing that worries me about the excludearch is that there is no
> mechanism forcing ultimate resolution on packages which could be made to
> work on ARM. Right now the goal of PA is a strong motivator for fixing
> packages. If we make it to PA, how will we stay motivated?

We're only ever going to asymptotically approach the complete x86 
package set so we're going to have to strike a middle ground.  What that 
is is open for discussion, but basically it breaks down into 3 categories:

1. Packages that are truly x86 specific do not need to be made to work 
on ARM.  And the packages that depend upon them hopefully don't either, 
but there's going to be some issues there.

2. Packages that FTBFS on x86 do not need to be made to work on ARM 
until they're also made to work on x86.

3. Anything left can and should be made to work on ARM.  How many 
packages are in this set?  If it's down to a few dozen let's just fix 
them up and be done with it.  If it's a few hundred we need a plan that 
involves getting to primary before we're at 100%.

So, basically, we need data.  What packages fit where in the above 3 
categories?  How close are we?

--
Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / blc@xxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
arm mailing list
arm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm