On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 5:37 PM, Chris Murphy <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 2:48 PM, Adam Williamson > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, 2016-04-19 at 13:48 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: > >>> Any i686 package that fails to build means it's failed for all primary >>> archs, because i686 is a primary arch. And a failed build means it >>> won't be tagged for compose so depending on the package it could hold >>> up composes. >> >> True, though I hadn't actually mentioned that scenario. But indeed. Say >> we needed a fix to dracut, pronto, to make the x86_64 cloud base image >> boot, but the build with the fix failed on i686: that would have to be >> dealt with somehow. Good point. > > Oh and about terminology, it may be here where "block" gets reused as > a term in a confusing way. If dracut build fails on i686, that > "blocks" composes. But it's really a kind of claw back: zombie i686 is > grabbing the leg of other primary archs, and that stops the workflow. > > Making i686 secondary would prevent this?
Concretely, in today's existing infrastructure and world, yes. A secondary arch does builds on a separate koji instance and failing builds there don't impact the builds in primary. However, a while ago Dennis proposed a different world (with related infrastructure changes) where that wouldn't necessarily be the case. I forget where we had the discussion about it. It might have been the rel-eng list. He hasn't pushed it much publicly though, and I don't want to speak for him. josh _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/[email protected]
