On Sun, 11 Sep 2016 15:40:39 +0100
"Richard W.M. Jones" <rjones(a)redhat.com> wrote:
I'd like to talk about the ground rules that Fedora/RISC-V should
for making '%ifarch riscv64'-specific changes to spec files in
I'm aware that no one wants invasive changes to be made (least of all
me) for the sake of an architecture that isn't generally available and
isn't even a secondary arch.
Also, we are working on persuading the RISC-V community that they
really must be more proactive in upstreaming their changes, something
they have not been good about so far. For this reason, Fedora/RISC-V
will try to get changes to the following packages upstream and won't
even consider making changes in Fedora (IOW we'll be shipping forks of
these packages for a while):
So far I have only pushed a single change to Fedora dist-git which was
related to RISC-V:
My aim, once we have a pure RPM-built "stage4", is to start auto-
building all @Core packages as they are built in Koji (either using
koji-shadow, or similar). Many packages will just work. For others
With koji-shadow you would need ~3k packages (of all kinds) to fulfil
the complete minimal buildroots. But maybe a simple script that listens
on Fedora message bus and starts a new riscv build when a rawhide build
for a whitelisted package appears could do the job.
it'll be a matter of fixing something and sending it upstream.
the ones where we have to make changes to the spec file to get them to
build which concern me. Ideally, if the changes are non-invasive, we
could add them to Fedora which would reduce the differences between
Fedora/RISC-V and Fedora.
The question is what things should we be doing or should we not be
doing, especially w.r.t Fedora spec files in dist-git?
It reminds me we are still waiting for pull-requests support in
dist-git to allow easier contributions.