[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [fab] Architecture Policy.



On Tue, 21 Nov 2006, seth vidal wrote:

Of course I've read the proposal. Have _you_ actually tried dealing with
Extras package-monkeys recently; trying to get them to fix a problem in
their packages which is even slightly outside their own use case?

I have a suggestion, David. Stop referring to our active and appreciated
volunteers as package monkeys. If you cannot refer to them respectfully
in public then do not do it at all.

+1 to Seth's point.  But beyond that...

David, what would you suggest?  In the abstract case:

1. A packager will almost always be packaging primarily for x86 or x86_64;

2. A packager will almost never have access to the hardware to test on other arches.

Given those two constraints, the duties of the secondary arch teams are to:

1. Make changes directly to any offending packages;

2. Notify the maintainer that the changes are being made;

3. Work with the maintainer to ensure that arch-specific changes do not break the packages.

What, exactly, is unreasonable about this proposal?

--g

-------------------------------------------------------------
Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org
Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors
-------------------------------------------------------------


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]