David Woodhouse <dwmw2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Mon, 2007-08-06 at 16:35 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: >> And shouldn't ppc64 (or any half-built arch) had been automatically >> introduced as a secondary arch anyway to not mess with normal >> packaging workflow? > ppc64 is a bit of a special case. We never used to build Extras for > ppc64, and with the merge we suddenly started to do so. Again: this is a matter of trying to bring Extras up to a portability standard we have long held Core to. I have little respect for any Extras-package maintainer who won't at least try to meet the challenge. If you're stuck because you depend on some other package that doesn't build on ppc64, then of course it's not your fault --- but if *you* are the roadblock, it's time to pull the socks up. regards, tom lane -- 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
