On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 12:10 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 19:20 -0400, Christopher Blizzard wrote: > > I think that this is a separate topic from the larger secondary arch > > disucssion? Whether or not PowerPC is on that list or not? > > Yes, but I have a suspicion there may be some backtracking. Since it was > assured before, I'd like it in writing now so that nobody can pretend it > wasn't said. > > Especially since we're making such unnecessary and potentially > detrimental changes to the way that secondary arches are handled. > I've been talking to people on and off about this and I think you're statement elsewhere in this thread hit it right on the nose: it's good to have a nice mix of 32 and 64 bit as well as LE and BE systems. So I think it's important that PPC be a primary arch and package maintainers are responsible to make sure that it works before any builds are pushed out to the repos. PPC is the fastest canary in the cage, if you will. :) --Chris -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
