On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:41:33AM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote: >> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > I think you're looking at this in slightly the wrong way. Being a >> > primary architecture isn't meant to be a benefit to the port - it's >> > meant to be a benefit to Fedora. Adding arm to the PA list means you'll >> > have to take on a huge number of additional responsibilities, deal with >> > more people who are unhappy about the impact upon their packages and so >> > on. You get very little out of it except that there's more people to >> > tell you that something's broken. >> >> I don't think this is true: On a primary architecture, every package >> maintainer is be expected to handle their own packages; this should >> actually significantly decrease the load on the "architecture >> maintainers". > > The expectation would be that the architecture maintainers have fixed > everything before moving to being a primary architecture, so this should > only be an issue if maintainers or upstream manage to come up with new > breakage. But yes, it forces people to care about something they might > previously have ignored, so I guess that's an advantage. Except when people are forced to look at it, their solution was often ExcludeArch for PPC. As I said in the other thread, you cannot force people to care about an architecture they don't know or want to learn. That's not to say there weren't a large number of people that _did_ try and fix things. It's just not a clear cut "this arch is primary so package maintainers will fix arch issues". josh -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
