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

Re: [fab] Architecture Policy.



On 11/21/06, David Woodhouse <dwmw2 infradead org> wrote:
On Tue, 2006-11-21 at 11:38 -0500, Greg Dekoenigsberg wrote:
> +1 to Seth's point.  But beyond that...

Would you care to suggest alternative nomenclature? I personally happen
to think that 'package-monkey' is a perfect term -- it definitely
describes my maintenance of the one gtk+dbus package I own (and which
I'm trying to get rid of) to a tee.

> 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.

Packagers always have at least remote access to PowerPC machines if they
need it.


To build yes, but building is only half the battle.

           -Mike


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