For your consideration: Secondary Architectures in Fedora
blizzard at redhat.com
Wed May 30 23:28:16 UTC 2007
On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 16:00 -0700, Chris Weyl wrote:
> Isn't this exactly the point of secondary architectures, tho?
> Maintainers are already on the hook to ensure their packages are 1)
> functioning or 2) tracked for the primary architectures, one of which
> many have probably never directly used. Relaxing the rules for
> secondary architectures would allow support for those architectures to
> be added automatically to the buildsys w/o imposing additional burdens
> on our (mostly unpaid!) maintainers. If it's really documentation or
> tracking secondary arch build failures, I'm sure a koji report could
> be rigged to do much the same.
I think that this is the key question that we need to be asking here:
For what is a package maintainer actually responsible? Right now it's
just primary arches. Do we want to add a lot of secondary arches right
now and make lives harder for people?
More information about the fedora-devel-list