Attachment 158926 Details for Bug 247745 – autosave file.

autosave file.

.evolution-composer.autosave-RXPNVT (text/plain), 7.64 KB, created by David Woodhouse on 2007-07-11 08:44:57 UTC

(hide)

Description:

Filename:

MIME Type:

Creator: David Woodhouse

Created: 2007-07-11 08:44:57 UTC

Size: 7.64 KB

patch

obsolete

>Subject: Re: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/SecondaryArchitectures
>From: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>
>To: Development discussions related to Fedora Core
>	 <fedora-devel-list@redhat.com>
>In-Reply-To: <18171.1184136057@sss.pgh.pa.us>
>References: <1184080763.3490.66.camel@localhost.localdomain>
>	 <1184084374.32628.9.camel@pmac.infradead.org>
>	 <1184087130.32199.21.camel@weaponx.rchland.ibm.com>
>	 <1184096545.3490.90.camel@localhost.localdomain>
>	 <46946784.8070902@marvell.com> <18171.1184136057@sss.pgh.pa.us>
>Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=-GC2RFqjd0ZPHXAGSKLPK"
>X-Evolution-Account: 0
>X-Evolution-Format: text/plain
>Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2007 09:34:53 +0100
>Message-Id: <1184142893.16724.1.camel@pmac.infradead.org>
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>
>
>--=-GC2RFqjd0ZPHXAGSKLPK
>Content-Type: text/plain
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 02:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: 
>> Manas Saksena <msaksena@marvell.com> writes:
>> > ... First, I assume that secondary arches can have a subset of packages
>> > from the main Fedora release. It might be a good idea to specifically
>> > say that. I dont know how to quantify it, but it also probably needs
>> > to be a reasonably large subset for it to make sense.
>> 
>> The real bottom line here is very simple: if package A does not work
>> on arch B, how close will we hold package A's maintainer's toes to
>> the fire?
>
>Not at all. If there's a package which doesn't work and has never
>worked, then then it'll probably fall to the architecture team to fix
>it.
>
>Mostly, that'll be because there's real porting work to be done.
>Occasionally it might be because the code is crap and has endianness
>issues, assumptions about 'char' being signed, etc. -- but if we have
>competent maintainers and decent code that shouldn't _often_ be the
>case. (It would actually be useful to keep at least one big-endian arch
>and one arch with unsigned char in the 'primary' set, to help keep
>maintainers honest and set the expectations. It's not as if it's that
>hard to add an ExcludeArch if you really have to).
>
>If the offending package is a _core_ package, and actually _matters_,
>then the architecture team will have fixed it before they ever call for
>their arch to be included as a secondary architecture.
>
>> To my mind, most open-source packages should aspire to work on every
>> machine out there --- surely we all have a goal of world domination
>> in mind? But I can see that some folks might have more limited goals,
>> eg make game X work on hardware Y. If they publish their source code
>> then I surely don't want to exclude them from the open-source
>> community.
>
>And we don't.
>
>> I don't know how to resolve these tensions. But for the most part
>> I think you should have a good excuse if you want to own a Fedora
>> package that doesn't run on anything under the sun. If your goal
>> does not include world domination, why not?
>> 
>> 			regards, tom lane
>> 
>-- 
>dwmw2
>
>--=-GC2RFqjd0ZPHXAGSKLPK
>Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8
>
><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 TRANSITIONAL//EN">
><HTML>
><HEAD>
> <META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; CHARSET=UTF-8">
> <META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="GtkHTML/3.14.3">
></HEAD>
><BODY>
>On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 02:40 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: 
><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
><PRE>
>Manas Saksena &lt;<A HREF="mailto:msaksena@marvell.com">msaksena@marvell.com</A>&gt; writes:
>&gt; ... First, I assume that secondary arches can have a subset of packages
>&gt; from the main Fedora release. It might be a good idea to specifically
>&gt; say that. I dont know how to quantify it, but it also probably needs
>&gt; to be a reasonably large subset for it to make sense.
>
>The real bottom line here is very simple: if package A does not work
>on arch B, how close will we hold package A's maintainer's toes to
>the fire?
></PRE>
></BLOCKQUOTE>
><PRE>
>
></PRE>
>Not at all. If there's a package which doesn't work and has never worked, then then it'll probably fall to the architecture team to fix it. 
> 
>Mostly, that'll be because there's real porting work to be done. Occasionally it might be because the code is crap and has endianness issues, assumptions about 'char' being signed, etc. -- but if we have competent maintainers and decent code that shouldn't _often_ be the case. (It would actually be useful to keep at least one big-endian arch and one arch with unsigned char in the 'primary' set, to help keep maintainers honest and set the expectations. It's not as if it's that hard to add an ExcludeArch if you really have to). 
> 
>If the offending package is a _core_ package, and actually _matters_, then the architecture team will have fixed it before they ever call for their arch to be included as a secondary architecture. 
> 
><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
><PRE>
>To my mind, most open-source packages should aspire to work on every
>machine out there --- surely we all have a goal of world domination
>in mind? But I can see that some folks might have more limited goals,
>eg make game X work on hardware Y. If they publish their source code
>then I surely don't want to exclude them from the open-source
>community.
></PRE>
></BLOCKQUOTE>
><PRE>
>
></PRE>
>And we don't. 
> 
><BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>
><PRE>
>I don't know how to resolve these tensions. But for the most part
>I think you should have a good excuse if you want to own a Fedora
>package that doesn't run on anything under the sun. If your goal
>does not include world domination, why not?
>
>			regards, tom lane
>
></PRE>
></BLOCKQUOTE>
><TABLE CELLSPACING="0" CELLPADDING="0" WIDTH="100%">
><TR>
><TD>
><PRE>
>-- 
>dwmw2
></PRE>
></TD>
></TR>
></TABLE>
></BODY>
></HTML>
>
>--=-GC2RFqjd0ZPHXAGSKLPK--

Actions: View

Attachments on bug 247745: 158926