On Wed, Mar 04, 2026 at 12:15:06PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 04, 2026 at 03:58:29AM -0800, Neal Gompa wrote:
[...]
> > Today, I would say the only meaningful separation of architecture
> > levels is at the Koji level. If there is a separate Koji instance, it
> > is secondary and non-blocking. Every architecture today in primary
> > Koji cannot actually fail, and therefore effectively operates as
> > primary architectures.
> >
> > That is the reality and that's what the document should say.
>
> Who is the target of this explanation / document ?
>
> Talking about koji instances implicitly means the target is Fedora
> maintainers.
Right, I should've made the audience clearer. As you guessed, the
target audience is indeed Fedora pacakge maintainers and "motivated
Architecture Maintainer Teams" as the doc calls it. Not traditional
end-users of Fedora.
> If we're instead trying to inform end users, then a different focus
> for the explanation would be better, as they don't care for details
> about how the distro is made, just the characteristics of what is
> delivered to them.
Yeah, to step back a bit, this topic came up on the Fedora RISC-V Matrix
channel, and Kevin Fenzi responded with some historical detail for
aarch64. While it was fresh in his mind, he ended up discussing it in
the FESCo meeting that happened right after that.
The larger context of this discussion is we (Fedora RISC-V SIG) are
figuring out a "path to primary arch" document for RISC-V. Many things
have to fall in place, including hardware vendors sticking to the
announced timlines, Koji builder hardware in the Fedora datacenter
(right now all Koji builder hardware is community-donated). We're
writing a document; we'll post it here once we have a draft.
[...]
> A secondary arch meanwhile may or may not be delivered on the
> co-ordinated Fedora release day, it could (in theory) lag by
> some days. It may also only have a subset of the Fedora features
> available. It may have lesser support, with delayed bug fixing
> / security fixes, or possibly missing enti rely.
Yeah, that's how it is today for Fedora RISC-V. It's a small team.
This has been the status I began working on this since last March:
- F42: for the first time, the F42 RISC-V images went out the same day
as primary architectures
- F43: a high-severity 'debuginfo' bug derailed many packages; ~92% of
F43 for RISC-V was ready for a while but the rest was hit by
this bug;it took time to sort it out working with relevant
maintainers, and rebuild all the affected pacakges
- F44: it's very unlikely to go out along with the primary release,
for various reasons; F44 mass-rebuild for RISC-V is yet to
start
(https://forge.fedoraproject.org/riscv/planning/issues/11)
[...]
Regards,
Kashyap
--
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
