On Tue, 2007-06-12 at 15:57 -0400, Christopher Blizzard wrote: > 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. :) I'm surprised. Pleasantly, because I agree with you, but surprised none the less. josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
