On Wed, Mar 04, 2026 at 09:07:39PM +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 04, 2026 at 12:12:14PM -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
[...]
> > I'd like to overhall it and move it into docs.fedoraproject.org (I guess
> > under fesco policy?).
Sounds fine to me.
> > I don't think primary vs alternative arches make much sense as terms, or
> > at least as they are currently defined. I'd suggest:
> >
> > primary arches - those arches that are build in the main fedora koji.
> >
> > alternative arches - those arches not built in the main fedora koji
>
> Sounds good too me.
Yeah, sounds clear enough to me.
> > but perhaps we need more distinction on alternative, because we have
> > things that are just stood up by some folks in the community and could
> > be one off efforts (I recompiled a bunch of stuff on $foo arch), or a
> > community group stands up their own koji and builds things ongoing, or
> > (as riscv is now) a infra managed koji is setup and community folks
> > build things in an ongoing way and work to get parity with primary.
>
> If community folks do something official, we don't even need to
> describe this in official docs.
Your sentence is tripping me up. Just to make sure I parsed you right:
did you mean:
"if community folks do something official, it doesn't needs
describing in the docs" (because "official stuff", by definition,
is allowed; and should already be described in some form)
Or did you mean this?
"if community folks do something *non-official*, we don't even need
to describe this in official docs"
At any rate, I get your main point :)
> > Of course there's even more shades in there, for example, right now the
> > risc-v koji is using community builders because we don't have any
> > dedicated ones yet. Having those would be requirement before trying to
> > promote it to the main koji.
Yeah, the Fedora RISC-V community does consider it a requirement (having
the hardware in the Fedora datacenter); it's being tracked here:
https://forge.fedoraproject.org/riscv/planning/issues/6
[Tracker] RISC-V builders in Fedora datacenter #6
> > Additionally, we have Architecture Maintainer Teams defined there.
> > There are still ppc64le, s390x, aarch64 specific maintainers around who
> > handle rare corner cases, but do we still want to have all those
> > requirements and responsiblities for them? and/or should that only be
> > for 'up and coming' arches? Some things make no sense anymore like
> > regular meetings on irc. ;)
>
> I'd drop anything that is not currently done, i.e. most of the second
> part of that wiki page.
The "Logistics" and "Packaging Issues" sections in the second part are
still largely accurate and apply here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures#Logistics
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures#Packaging_Issues
>From a quick read, these need fixing:
- The URLs in the "File Storage" section needs to be updated
- In the "ExcludeArch & ExclusiveArch" section, it says:
"There is a process running that will notify architecture
maintainers of all changes in Exclude and Exclusive Arch headers
along with daily summaries of all packages with architecture
specific handling"
I don't think this is happening.
Regards,
Kashyap
--
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
Do not reply to spam, report it:
https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
