On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 11:48:34 -0400 Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxx> 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. Isn't open source about scratching your own itch and making it easy for others to scratch theirs? We're providing a way for non-maintstream arches to play along side the main stream and have access to fix things when they go awry, but asking volunteers to care about exotic arches is just silly and rude. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
-- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
