On Tue, 2007-05-29 at 16:00 -0700, Chris Weyl wrote: > > Isn't this exactly the point of secondary architectures, tho? > Maintainers are already on the hook to ensure their packages are 1) > functioning or 2) tracked for the primary architectures, one of which > many have probably never directly used. Relaxing the rules for > secondary architectures would allow support for those architectures to > be added automatically to the buildsys w/o imposing additional burdens > on our (mostly unpaid!) maintainers. If it's really documentation or > tracking secondary arch build failures, I'm sure a koji report could > be rigged to do much the same. I think that this is the key question that we need to be asking here: For what is a package maintainer actually responsible? Right now it's just primary arches. Do we want to add a lot of secondary arches right now and make lives harder for people? --Chris -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
