Reduced package set for Secondary arches

[Dennis Gilmore]

On Tuesday 29 September 2009 08:15:16 pm Josh Boyer wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> I'd like to ask about using a reduced package set for secondary arch ports
>  of Fedora.
> 
> When this all started, we had laid down the requirements that any package
> changes be in Fedora CVS, and the packages would all be built via the
>  Fedora build tools.  In discussions with Dennis, it seems the current mode
>  of operation is to require the secondary arch ports to build the full
>  package set of Fedora (minus Exclude/ExclusiveArch) before being
>  considered a true secondary arch.

right now the only way we have to exclude things would be to commit to each 
package an ExcludeArch line.  that in conjunction with the list of 
ExlcudeArch/ExclusiveArch packages is how we determine what to or what not to 
build.   i'm open to other way to implement this. but its never been on the 
table.

> Is this summary accurate?  I can understand some of the reasoning behind
>  it. However, I find it to be excessive.  Particularly for architectures
>  that simply would not benefit at all from having cowsay or fortune or even
>  Gnome built for that architecture.

i'm open to doing it otherwise.  a big issue was that while you may not find 
cowsay, fortune or even gnome useful.  others do.  We don't want to exclude 
people from doing what they want with Fedora.   I will admit that it is 
limiting you from limiting the package set and what others can do.

> 
> So I am requesting that we review our package set policy and try to come to
> some agreement.

Please make a proposal.

Dennis
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/secondary/attachments/20090929/3314395c/attachment.bin