Jesse Keating writes: > 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. 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 -- 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
