David Woodhouse (dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx) said: > > 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. This does not scale to all arches (I'm beginning to think 'ports' is the right term here) that there may be for Fedora. > > Given those two constraints, the duties of the secondary arch teams > > are to: > > You omitted the duties of the package owner, which include not > committing gratuitously non-portable code. Of course. But the arch team has wide-ranging powers to fix such cases if they slip in, and the steering committees/board have the abillity to take action against maintainers if it becomes a repeated problem. > Currently, it works well. What I said is that I don't want to see a > regression in that situation -- I don't want to see packagers saying "I > don't care -- it works for me on little-endian machines where char is > signed". > > The appropriate response was "yes, that's a valid concern and we'll make > sure it doesn't happen". Not the dismissive attitude which Bill showed. No, my statement is that that's *always* been the case, and you're inventing non-issues. If there are cases of this happening now, the Extras steering committee should be made aware of it. Bill _______________________________________________ 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
