Make ppc64 secondary arch - don't block builds (was: Dealing with ppc64 BRs)

[Andrew Haley]

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