RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

[Matthew Garrett]

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 at srcf.ucam.org> 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.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org