On 06/03/2011 03:39 PM, Lamar Owen wrote: > On Friday, June 03, 2011 09:31:55 AM Karanbir Singh wrote: >> looks like a case is building to start considering next-steps in getting >> a i586 repo/ in place ! > > How might such a repo be handled, in terms of development? Let me get a potential plan/proposal together. It would need to be something that can stay in sync with the main os/ and updates/ builds as a minimum. Although we can perhaps run with a more relaxed test/release process. > Also, there are other 'secondary' architectures that have somewhat languished, including SPARC and IA64. I have interest, and hardware, for both of those. there is actually an ia64 build that runs in parallel with the x86_64 C5 stream.... And there has been a fair bit of work done on Sparc for c6. Lets work on getting a plan together for these 'extra' archs using the i586 target as a model - we can then expand that to include other arch's as well. I'm also working on bringing in more resources towards the build/test/release infrastructure over the next few months. Lets see how that goes. > And while I further know that the project wouldn't sign packages that I built here, I would still build packages here for my own purposes anyway. If the development process can churn via patches that get some sort of peer review, I dont see why the build+sign cant happen inside a centos builder instance. There is hardware for ia64/i586/sparc available. Keys are still something to look at further down the road. > So having somewhat of a really high-level overview of handling of secondary arches would be useful, to more than just me I'm sure. cool, let me get something together. It will, ofcourse, be a lot easier in C6 than C4/C5; unless we can migrate the whole c4/c5 buildservices over to use the event driven stuff in C6 - KB