On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59(a)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(a)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.