Dealing with PPC in Fedora 9(+)

[Josh Boyer]

On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 22:58:21 +0000
David Woodhouse <dwmw2 at infradead.org> wrote:

> 
> On Mon, 2007-11-12 at 14:58 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 14:40:31 -0500
> > David Woodhouse <dwmw2 at infradead.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > I don't believe it's realistic to make changes to the hosting and
> > > mirroring arrangements either -- let's stick with the plan of keeping
> > > them in the 'normal tree' which you called a last resort.
> > > 
> > > We'll plan to have each spin ready on time, so it can go out fairly
> > > much synchronously with the i386 and x86_64 releases -- and more to
> > > the point, with precisely the same package set. If for some reason we
> > > slip, let's impose a rule that we may not ship any packages in the
> > > PPC spin which are not in rawhide (for the RCs) or f9-updates (for
> > > the release).
> > > 
> > > OK?
> > 
> > This seems a reasonable compromise all together.  I can be happy with
> > this for Fedora 9.  Hopefully by the time 9 is let loose, we'll have
> > had at least one other full fledged secondary arch up and running and
> > proving that the method can work.
> 
> I suspect this is going to work a whole lot better if I have commit
> access to anaconda, kudzu, rhpl, booty, etc.
> 
> At the moment, the round-trip time between me generating a patch to
> something like kudzu and seeing it in a testable rawhide build is
> somewhat suboptimal.
> 
> I don't mean to complain -- I know people are busy and have better
> things to do than commit my patches and kick off builds so that I can
> get on with testing rawhide. But people are going to be busy in the
> run-up to te releases too, when I most want my fixes to be getting into
> builds promptly.
> 
> So it's probably best if I can be a little more self-sufficient in that
> respect, by having commit access to both upstream and package
> repositories and being able to do builds (at least for rawhide). Please.
> 
> Actually, we've spoken often of "arch teams" having commit access to
> _all_ packages. Is that feasible?

Perhaps with FAS2.  I don't believe it is right now.  Though
considering I have commit access to everything already, adding you
would cover the whole team!

josh