Re: New Blocker Criterion Proposal: Same default packages for all arches

On 05/12/2017 06:17 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Kamil Paral wrote: >> >> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Matthew Miller >> wrote: >>> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 04:52:05PM +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: Why would we

Re: New Blocker Criterion Proposal: Same default packages for all arches

>> In an extreme situation, a release could be nearly impossible due to >> dependency cycles. > >You'd need to provide specific examples for "extreme" as this has not >happened in recent Fedora history (at least back to F-21) I cannot cite an historical example. With more than a thousand

Re: New Blocker Criterion Proposal: Same default packages for all arches

On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Kamil Paral wrote: > > > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Matthew Miller > wrote: >> >> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 04:52:05PM +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: >> > Why would we dictate that Editions/Spins can't use different

Re: New Blocker Criterion Proposal: Same default packages for all arches

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 04:52:05PM +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: > > Why would we dictate that Editions/Spins can't use different software on > > different architectures? It might make perfect sense to use browser X

Re: New Blocker Criterion Proposal: Same default packages for all arches

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 04:52:05PM +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: > Why would we dictate that Editions/Spins can't use different software on > different architectures? It might make perfect sense to use browser X on > x86_64 because it's very good, but use browser Y on i386 because of memory >

Re: New Blocker Criterion Proposal: Same default packages for all arches

On 05/11/2017 01:33 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2017-05-11 at 17:33 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: >>> For this particular Firefox example, what is the core problem that you're >>> trying to fix here? Is it the fact that Firefox excluded many arches from >>> builds? From my QA POV, since

Re: New Blocker Criterion Proposal: Same default packages for all arches

On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2017-05-11 at 17:40 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: >> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Mike Ruckman >> wrote: >> > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 04:52:05PM +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: >>

Re: New Blocker Criterion Proposal: Same default packages for all arches

On Thu, 2017-05-11 at 17:40 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Mike Ruckman wrote: > > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 04:52:05PM +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: > > > I don't really understand this, and I haven't read the meeting log, so I > > > apologize

Re: New Blocker Criterion Proposal: Same default packages for all arches

On Thu, 2017-05-11 at 17:33 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > > For this particular Firefox example, what is the core problem that you're > > trying to fix here? Is it the fact that Firefox excluded many arches from > > builds? From my QA POV, since it excluded arm, it's a blocker, since arm is > >

Re: New Blocker Criterion Proposal: Same default packages for all arches

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Mike Ruckman wrote: > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 04:52:05PM +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: >> I don't really understand this, and I haven't read the meeting log, so I >> apologize if my questions are dumb. > > I was in the meeting, and I was

Re: New Blocker Criterion Proposal: Same default packages for all arches

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 4:15 PM, Richard Ryniker wrote: > I agree with you that Firefox is an important resource that Fedora should > deliver, but think a criterion that failure to supply the same default > package set for all (blocking) architectures will do more harm than

Re: New Blocker Criterion Proposal: Same default packages for all arches

>> For a little background, yesterday we had a very long discussion of a >> bug[1] during the blocker bug meeting. The quick overview of that bug is >> that Firefox failed to build on some non-x86 architectures, so the >> package maintainer opted to stop building Firefox on anything but i686 >>

Re: New Blocker Criterion Proposal: Same default packages for all arches

On Thu, 2017-05-11 at 08:01 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > On 05/11/2017 02:53 AM, Kamil Paral wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:24 PM, Adam Williamson > > > > wrote: > > > > On Wed, 2017-05-10 at 16:52 +0200,

Re: New Blocker Criterion Proposal: Same default packages for all arches

On 05/11/2017 02:53 AM, Kamil Paral wrote: > > > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:24 PM, Adam Williamson > wrote: > > On Wed, 2017-05-10 at 16:52 +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: > > For this particular Firefox example, what is the

Re: New Blocker Criterion Proposal: Same default packages for all arches

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 10:24 PM, Adam Williamson < adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > On Wed, 2017-05-10 at 16:52 +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: > > For this particular Firefox example, what is the core problem that you're > > trying to fix here? Is it the fact that Firefox excluded many arches

Re: New Blocker Criterion Proposal: Same default packages for all arches

On Wed, 2017-05-10 at 16:52 +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: > For this particular Firefox example, what is the core problem that you're > trying to fix here? Is it the fact that Firefox excluded many arches from > builds? From my QA POV, since it excluded arm, it's a blocker, since arm is > primary.

Re: New Blocker Criterion Proposal: Same default packages for all arches

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 04:52:05PM +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: > I don't really understand this, and I haven't read the meeting log, so I > apologize if my questions are dumb. I was in the meeting, and I was confused - so your questions aren't dumb. :) > Why would we dictate that Editions/Spins

Re: New Blocker Criterion Proposal: Same default packages for all arches

I agree with you that Firefox is an important resource that Fedora should deliver, but think a criterion that failure to supply the same default package set for all (blocking) architectures will do more harm than good. Release criteria should focus on the quality of what is delivered in a

Re: New Blocker Criterion Proposal: Same default packages for all arches

On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 1:39 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > For a little background, yesterday we had a very long discussion of a > bug[1] during the blocker bug meeting. The quick overview of that bug is > that Firefox failed to build on some non-x86 architectures, so the >

Re: New Blocker Criterion Proposal: Same default packages for all arches

On 05/09/2017 08:17 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Tue, 2017-05-09 at 19:39 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: >> However, it seems that our >> blocker criteria do not describe one institutional guideline that we've >> been trying to follow: that alternative architectures should be >> delivering

Re: New Blocker Criterion Proposal: Same default packages for all arches

On Tue, 2017-05-09 at 19:39 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > However, it seems that our > blocker criteria do not describe one institutional guideline that we've > been trying to follow: that alternative architectures should be > delivering the same content as the "primary" architectures.

New Blocker Criterion Proposal: Same default packages for all arches

For a little background, yesterday we had a very long discussion of a bug[1] during the blocker bug meeting. The quick overview of that bug is that Firefox failed to build on some non-x86 architectures, so the package maintainer opted to stop building Firefox on anything but i686 and x86_64. This