Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-factory (435 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-factory] Re: [RFC] OpenSUSE Distribution Tiers Policy
  • From: Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2020 11:27:28 -0400
  • Message-id: <CAEg-Je-H1m_ScNJtXD5aiUDsT37P9R=Mn8SSd3WWzH3H7SLdnA@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:30 AM Ludwig Nussel <ludwig.nussel@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar wrote:
On Mon, 2020-07-06 at 15:04 +0200, Ludwig Nussel wrote:

The document explains a list of checkmark items that are required to
be fulfilled in order to be able to apply to becoming a primary
architecture, right?

What's the outcome of an approval to become primary though?

Ie after aarch64 gets promoted to primary, will it be removed from
openSUSE:Factory:ARM and be and added to the "standard" repo in
openSUSE:Factory?
Will staging projects, including ADI build aarch64?

We made the experiment with ppc64le in rings/stagings - and frankly,
with the current worker-pool, this became more than just an annoyance.
The more we enabled ppc64le in the stagings, obviously, more devel
projects enabled ppc64le as well, further putting strain on the already
limited worker pool. It was not uncommon that x86_64/i586 builds were
completed > 48 hours earlier than ppc64le in a staging (and that was at
the time where I had 10 TW stagings, now we're at 15 + Gcc)

If getting those archs as part of /standard and thus staging is a
requirement, we clearly need also some words about worker-pool-size
here.

Also, the more archs we add to /standard, the larger the worker needed
to build the FTP Tree (keep in mind that it caches all packages from
all archs, meaning src/noarch packages exist in as many archs, even
though only one ends up in the repo in the end - but the worker needs
the disk space - plus it increases the time to cache the stuff on the
worker and build the product)

So what is the conclusion from that?

We can't actually afford to promote any other arch than x86_64 to
primary due to those constraints?

The proposed policy needs to be extended to also require sufficient OBS
resources?


To me, it sounds like the conclusion is *real* architecture support
for openSUSE is a fantasy, because you cannot make it work top-level.
I would agree that any architecture you want to consider "primary" or
"main" or whatever needs to be in "openSUSE:Factory" for Tumbleweed,
and "openSUSE:Leap:<version>" for the openSUSE Leap version.

Ideally, there should be no Ports project at all anymore, and all
architectures would be built through the main one.


--
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >