On 11/21/06, David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, 2006-11-21 at 11:38 -0500, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote:
> +1 to Seth's point. But beyond that...
Would you care to suggest alternative nomenclature? I personally happen
to think that 'package-monkey' is a perfect term -- it definitely
describes my maintenance of the one gtk+dbus package I own (and which
I'm trying to get rid of) to a tee.
> 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.
Packagers always have at least remote access to PowerPC machines if they
need it.
To build yes, but building is only half the battle.
-Mike
_______________________________________________
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
