On Tue, 18 Mar 2014 05:54:43 -0500
Jim Perrin <jperrin(a)centos.org> wrote:
In preparation for the launch of EL7 and due to community demand,
CentOS Project will be providing additional arch support not included
in RHEL. Specifically we intend to continue producing for the i686
architecture, as well as adding ARMv7 builds. These additional builds
will allow users with legacy hardware (or 32bit cloud images) to
migrate to newer versions while addressing the growing demand for ARM
Sounds reasonable. ;)
EPEL provides a valuable resource to CentOS (and other builds), and
since a number of projects based on CentOS rely heavily on EPEL, we
would like to request that support for these additional architectures
be added to EPEL via a 'secondary arch'. This would be similar to the
Fedora distro structure regarding PPC64 and s390x, so that the impact
to the existing EPEL build structure should be minimal. Since adding
arch support can complicate packaging, we would offer that the SIG
maintainers of these additional architectures provide assistance where
possible in the event that some packages don't build properly. I don't
want to duplicate the efforts already made by the EPEL contributors to
supplement the base packages provided in the distribution simply for
arch support, especially when much of the work is already handled via
Fedora's git infra.
Is this proposal acceptable to the EPEL devs and contributors?
I think this is a reasonable way forward for now.
Short term we would need to setup a blocker bug for the arches for
those teams to watch when maintainers need help, and would need to
grant them access to make changes needed to keep things building.
If/when things are all up and running smoothly, we could look at making