On Mon, Aug 06, 2007 at 11:48:34AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > But we're not talking about a secondary arch, we're talking about a > > primary arch. Like it or not, ppc (and thus ppc64) is a primary arch > > set and must addressed just like the other primary arches. > > 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. So by forcing packagers to rebuilding with ExclusiveArchs and users to redownload artificially bumped packages w/o any content changes you make anyonw worry about ppc support? I for one felt like this is a big PITA and was not motivated at all to find the ppc specific issues. > 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. Why not add some 8bit arch to ensure even more portability? Or 31bits to make it at least useful? Let's worry about portability when the arch we want to port to appears and not use some archs to *practice* portability. > Else the secondary arches are *all* doomed to failure in the long > run. <Louis_de_Funès_mode> bof! </Louis_de_Funès_mode> -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpoOSHVFe5o6.pgp
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
