On Mon, 2008-03-03 at 17:05 +0000, David Woodhouse wrote: > And as it stands, those new architectures > don't really gain much at all over what they could have achieved as > standalone efforts. They gain the Fedora infrastructure and the Fedora community. I think those are huge gains. You essentially want to force all architectures to be primaries, and if any arch fails a build, to fail them all. The only way to do this is to have all builds held until they all complete, slowing the build process to the slowest arch. It also increases the burden on the Fedora packager, increasingly the likelyhood of a kneejerk ExcludeArch for architectures they are unfamiliar with. I don't agree with that approach, and this is where we differ. I would rather enable teams of motivated developers to drive support for additional architectures without slowing our primary architecture platform efforts, and this is what the Fedora Architectures plan does (and is what was ratified and approved). ~spot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
