[fab] Architecture Policy.

[Bill Nottingham]

David Woodhouse (dwmw2 at infradead.org) said: 
> > 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.
> 
> Packagers always have at least remote access to PowerPC machines if they
> need it.

This does not scale to all arches (I'm beginning to think 'ports' is
the right term here) that there may be for Fedora.

> > Given those two constraints, the duties of the secondary arch teams
> > are to:
> 
> You omitted the duties of the package owner, which include not
> committing gratuitously non-portable code.

Of course. But the arch team has wide-ranging powers to fix such cases
if they slip in, and the steering committees/board have the abillity
to take action against maintainers if it becomes a repeated problem.

> Currently, it works well. What I said is that I don't want to see a
> regression in that situation -- I don't want to see packagers saying "I
> don't care -- it works for me on little-endian machines where char is
> signed".
> 
> The appropriate response was "yes, that's a valid concern and we'll make
> sure it doesn't happen". Not the dismissive attitude which Bill showed.

No, my statement is that that's *always* been the case, and you're inventing
non-issues. If there are cases of this happening now, the Extras steering
committee should be made aware of it.

Bill