On Thu, 5 Mar 2026 15:23:04 +0100
Kashyap Chamarthy <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 04, 2026 at 09:07:39PM +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 04, 2026 at 12:12:14PM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:  
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > I'd like to overhall it and move it into docs.fedoraproject.org (I guess
> > > under fesco policy?).  
> 
> Sounds fine to me.
> 
> > > I don't think primary vs alternative arches make much sense as terms, or
> > > at least as they are currently defined. I'd suggest:
> > > 
> > > primary arches - those arches that are build in the main fedora koji.
> > > 
> > > alternative arches - those arches not built in the main fedora koji  
> > 
> > Sounds good too me.  
> 
> Yeah, sounds clear enough to me.
> 
> > > but perhaps we need more distinction on alternative, because we have
> > > things that are just stood up by some folks in the community and could
> > > be one off efforts (I recompiled a bunch of stuff on $foo arch), or a
> > > community group stands up their own koji and builds things ongoing, or
> > > (as riscv is now) a infra managed koji is setup and community folks
> > > build things in an ongoing way and work to get parity with primary.  
> > 
> > If community folks do something official, we don't even need to
> > describe this in official docs.  
> 
> Your sentence is tripping me up.  Just to make sure I parsed you right:
> did you mean:
> 
>     "if community folks do something official, it doesn't needs
>     describing in the docs"  (because "official stuff", by definition,
>     is allowed; and should already be described in some form)
> 
> Or did you mean this? 
> 
>     "if community folks do something *non-official*, we don't even need
>     to describe this in official docs"
> 
> At any rate, I get your main point :)
> 
> > > Of course there's even more shades in there, for example, right now the
> > > risc-v koji is using community builders because we don't have any
> > > dedicated ones yet. Having those would be requirement before trying to
> > > promote it to the main koji.  
> 
> Yeah, the Fedora RISC-V community does consider it a requirement (having
> the hardware in the Fedora datacenter); it's being tracked here:
> 
>     https://forge.fedoraproject.org/riscv/planning/issues/6
>     [Tracker] RISC-V builders in Fedora datacenter #6 
> 
> > > Additionally, we have Architecture Maintainer Teams defined there.
> > > There are still ppc64le, s390x, aarch64 specific maintainers around who
> > > handle rare corner cases, but do we still want to have all those
> > > requirements and responsiblities for them? and/or should that only be
> > > for 'up and coming' arches? Some things make no sense anymore like
> > > regular meetings on irc. ;)   
> > 
> > I'd drop anything that is not currently done, i.e. most of the second
> > part of that wiki page.  
> 
> The "Logistics" and "Packaging Issues" sections in the second part are
> still largely accurate and apply here:
> 
>     https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures#Logistics
>     https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures#Packaging_Issues
> 
> >From a quick read, these need fixing:  
> 
>   -  The URLs in the "File Storage" section needs to be updated
> 
>   -  In the "ExcludeArch & ExclusiveArch" section, it says: 
>         
>         "There is a process running that will notify architecture
>         maintainers of all changes in Exclude and Exclusive Arch headers
>         along with daily summaries of all packages with architecture
>         specific handling"
> 
>      I don't think this is happening.

you mean for RISC-V work or generally? Because we have the per-arch
trackers in bugzilla and the the arch-excludes mailing list for
detected changes in spec files and the summaries.


                Dan
-- 
_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to