http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/SecondaryArchitectures

[Christopher Aillon]

David Woodhouse wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 16:58 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
>> I'm still not convinced this is necessary. I think this puts too much
>> burden on the maintainer, when this should fall to the secondary
>> architecture team.
> 
> I think you're mistaken on both counts -- on where the responsibility is
> likely to lie, and on the amount of this 'burden'.
> 
> My experience is that _most_ such failures are going to turn out to be
> generic bugs in the package; not really arch-specific problems at all.
> They'll bite on more than one, if not all, architecture(s); if not
> immediately then over time.

The term package is overloaded here.  In general the failures are in 
upstream packages; not the Fedora package glue.

While we want to and should encourage packagers to fix bugs in upstream 
code, dealing with bugs that are not part of an official Fedora release 
should never be a requirement for Fedora packagers, IMHO.