On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 12:29 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > Yes, it's "easy" to care about other arches when you're paid to do so. > But we have this goal that we want Fedora to be accessible and worked > on by more than just Red Hat engineering. And the sad reality of > today is that x86 is the prevalent arch and that's the lions share of > volunteers we're going to get. And that's fine. > Forcing them to care about whatever arches Red Hat deems is > necessary for their business strategy will likely cut our volunteers > by quite a bit and send them somewhere else that doesn't force them to > cater to $BigCorp business concerns. That's just nonsense, Jesse. We don't "force them to care". If they have a problem on PPC and they just resort to using ExcludeArch, that's fine. It's suboptimal if they do that without even _looking_ at the failure -- one would hope that our package maintainers are more conscientious than that, and for the most part they _are_. But we don't _force_ them to be. We have this working well _already_. If a packager doesn't care or can't fix the problem, or just doesn't feel like bothering, they can just exclude _any_ arch they like, for whatever reason. All we require is that they file a corresponding ExcludeArch bug to explain their reasons and allow interested parties to fix it up themselves. It turns out that the _majority_ of the bugs on the PPC ExcludeArch tracker end up being be _generic_ bugs. If they didn't bite on i386 at the time, that was purely a coincidence -- due to timing on SMP build machines, the precise choices the compiler happened to make that day, the phase of the moon, etc. They'd have bitten i386 eventually, and we _do_ improve Fedora/i386 quality by fixing them before that happens. I offer accounts to people who report problems on PPC. I don't recall a single case where they _haven't_ taken me up on it and looked into the problem. They usually seem _pleased_ of the opportunity to act as a conscientious package maintainer. Nobody is _forced_ to do anything, however often you repeat that nonsense. Ignoring build failures when they're _likely_ to be a generic problem is not something which is going to be good for Fedora. -- dwmw2 -- 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
