On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, seth vidal wrote:
Of course I've read the proposal. Have _you_ actually tried dealing with
Extras package-monkeys recently; trying to get them to fix a problem in
their packages which is even slightly outside their own use case?
I have a suggestion, David. Stop referring to our active and appreciated
volunteers as package monkeys. If you cannot refer to them respectfully
in public then do not do it at all.
+1 to Seth's point. But beyond that...
David, what would you suggest? In the abstract case:
1. A packager will almost always be packaging primarily for x86 or x86_64;
2. A packager will almost never have access to the hardware to test on
other arches.
Given those two constraints, the duties of the secondary arch teams are
to:
1. Make changes directly to any offending packages;
2. Notify the maintainer that the changes are being made;
3. Work with the maintainer to ensure that arch-specific changes do not
break the packages.
What, exactly, is unreasonable about this proposal?
--g
-------------------------------------------------------------
Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org
Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors
-------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board mailing list
fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
_______________________________________________
fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list
fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
