Make ppc64 secondary arch - don't block builds (was: Dealing with ppc64 BRs)
Andrew Haley
aph at redhat.com
Mon Aug 6 16:16:06 UTC 2007
Jesse Keating writes:
> On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 11:48:34 -0400
> Tom Lane <tgl at redhat.com> wrote:
> > I really find it troublesome that anyone thinks they shouldn't be
> > primary. If the only primary arches are x86/x86_64, then
> > packagers will basically not have any forcing function to make
> > them worry about whether the code is portable to any non-Intel
> > platform. I think that at minimum we need a bigendian arch or
> > two in the primary set, just so that there's at least a token
> > requirement for portability. Else the secondary arches are *all*
> > doomed to failure in the long run.
>
> But I find it troublesome that we're going to make /everybody/ care
> about something that 1% of our user base has, so that the 1% has a
> better life.
Bugs found when chasing down portability problems are often real bugs,
not just non-portable code. For that reason, 100% of our users
benefit from portable code, not just the 1% who use minor
architectures. It's in everyone's interest that Fedora code is real C
(or C++).
Andrew.
--
Red Hat UK Ltd, Amberley Place, 107-111 Peascod Street, Windsor, Berkshire, SL4 1TE, UK
Registered in England and Wales No. 3798903
More information about the Fedora-maintainers
mailing list