For your consideration: Secondary Architectures in Fedora

[Christopher Blizzard]

On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 13:54 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> 
> I think i agree with you on this.  I think a build failure needs to
> result in some definitive action  so that the appropriate group can
> figure out how to fix it.  If the maintainer decides to excludearch
> that arch... then so be it...but its then at least documented for
> later investigation. 

So here's another way to look at this.  I suspect that for a majority of
packages and developers drinking from the fire hose of every package on
every platform is a lot to swallow.  It's easy to say that "everyone
should be responsible for everything!" but it's also a good way to keep
people who don't want to do it full time from participating.  It's
another huge bar to cross and as a result of that, I don't think it's
the right model.

Does this mean that packagers shouldn't be notified that a package
failed on a secondary arch?  I think they should.  Should they work with
the arch team and accept fixes where it's reasonable?  Absolutely.  Does
this mean that every packager considers sparc or arm to be the same as
x86 or x86_64?  I don't think so.

So given that we're trying to keep the barriers for entry low and what
people are responsible is part of that formula, don't we want to make
sure that we're doing that everywhere?

--Chris