For your consideration: Secondary Architectures in Fedora
Bill Nottingham
notting at redhat.com
Wed May 30 19:43:43 UTC 2007
David Woodhouse (dwmw2 at infradead.org) said:
> It might be OK to allow the bug to be filed _after_ the build failure,
> explaining the reason for the failure and why it's outside the
> capabilities of the package maintainer to fix it. Then the package could
> be pushed for the architectures for which it _did_ build. But I don't
> see any real advantage to that over the current system; it's just more
> complexity.
Because, realistically, I don't want secondary arches to hold up
development work in the cases where:
- gcc breaks for X number of days
- the architecture maintainers go AWOL
- the hosting provider for said secondary arches goes AWOL
Bill
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list