[fab] Architecture Policy.

[Greg Dekoenigsberg]

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, seth vidal wrote:

>> Of course I've read the proposal. Have _you_ actually tried dealing with
>> Extras package-monkeys recently; trying to get them to fix a problem in
>> their packages which is even slightly outside their own use case?
>
> I have a suggestion, David. Stop referring to our active and appreciated
> volunteers as package monkeys. If you cannot refer to them respectfully
> in public then do not do it at all.

+1 to Seth's point.  But beyond that...

David, what would you suggest?  In the abstract case:

1. A packager will almost always be packaging primarily for x86 or x86_64;

2. A packager will almost never have access to the hardware to test on 
other arches.

Given those two constraints, the duties of the secondary arch teams are 
to:

1. Make changes directly to any offending packages;

2. Notify the maintainer that the changes are being made;

3. Work with the maintainer to ensure that arch-specific changes do not 
break the packages.

What, exactly, is unreasonable about this proposal?

--g

-------------------------------------------------------------
Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org
Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors
-------------------------------------------------------------