On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 08:30 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 1:44 PM, langdon <lang...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: > > OVERVIEW > > ======== > > > > As the modularity work starts to enter Fedora with the Fedora 27 > > release, a typical Change Proposal did not seem to do justice on > > capturing the moving parts and dependencies for the work to successfully > > land. As a result, this document attempts to capture, at a high level, > > the goals and deliverables for F27. We are also providing links to the > > details to most aspects. Some of the details are still in progress and > > will change over the F26 lifecycle (e.g. which modules will be included > > for F27 Server). > > > > THE GOAL > > ======== > > > > The Modularity and Server Working Groups plan, with the help of many > > other groups in Fedora, to deliver a fully modularized version of the > > Fedora Server Edition. As an equal and complementary goal, the tooling > > for module creation/development, deployment and automatic testing will > > be as simple and automated as possible. > > [*Change*](https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modular_Server) > > Given that Server is widely used across a number of architectures, > with participation from various groups using those architectures, we > still need Server to work on all the architectures it does today. Is > that your understanding as well?
I'll note that the only 'release-blocking' Server deliverables are all x86_64. The only other 'release-blocking' arch we have is armhfp, but the 'release-blocking' deliverables for that arch are the minimal and Xfce disk images, not any Server image (and implicitly, not any Server product). I'd say it's quite obviously the case that the modular Server has to work on 'all' arches that were release-blocking for the previous Server, but that turns out in practice to be only x86_64. How important it is that it work immediately on other arches doesn't seem to be a question with an immediate and obvious answer, to me. After all, at present it is theoretically the case that we would release Fedora if Server was entirely broken on armhfp or any other arch but x86_64; and indeed we have recently rejected a proposed blocker bug - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1463297 - that is a fairly significant bug in Server on armhfp (not quite a showstopper, but close) on the grounds that there are no release-blocking Server armhfp deliverables... -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
