Jesse Keating schrieb: > On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 17:16:06 +0100 > Andrew Haley <aph@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> 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++). > > But when that bug doesn't effect the majority of our user base, do > those users really care? Should the? Yes. Do they? No. "It works > for me and my major arch, why should I care that it broke on your silly > arch?" If we think this way... Well then we must stop the pedantic check of open from latest glibc (I think it's already disabled however.)... Seems 100% of our userbase could have lived without that check... And it also seems that *many* of our packagers could as well - they now need to write patches and send 'em upstream. I don't want to imagine what some upstream maintainers will say..... We then could also ignore any kind of -Werror :-P OK, /me comes back from sarkasm. Jesse, we had this topic a few times already - on this list. I can understand if someone says: Ignore it, it's ARM or ignore it, it's Alpha (well, as Alpha-maintainer I don't really *want* to hear that). But for ppc - I guess there are already quite a lot people out there using Fedora on ppc(64). Isn't it? For the "blocking builds" topic. Well, if it doesn't work on ppc64 - the only primary-non-intel-64bit arch in Fedora (as far as I know), we should really block it and have a look... If it's an security-update, push it ASAP... If not, try to fix it or find someone who can fix it. There are usually people out there willing to help. -of -- 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
