RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements
pbrobinson at gmail.com
Wed Mar 21 13:26:58 UTC 2012
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org> wrote:
> 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
> 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.
And we've already being doing that with the vast majority of issues
already fixed and committed to mainline.
More information about the devel