For your consideration: Secondary Architectures in Fedora

Bill Nottingham notting at
Wed May 30 19:43:43 UTC 2007

David Woodhouse (dwmw2 at 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


More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list