On 05/12/2017 06:17 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Kamil Paral
<kparal(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 04:52:05PM +0200, Kamil Paral wrote:
>>> Why would we dictate that Editions/Spins can't use different software on
>>> different architectures? It might make perfect sense to use browser X on
>>> x86_64 because it's very good, but use browser Y on i386 because of
>>> memory
>>> limitations of i386 arch (browser Y needing much less memory than
>>> browser
>>> X). Similarly, if shell A no longer supports i386, why would be ban it
>>> from
>> Speaking as someone who "sells" this stuff, I think it'd be
confusing
>> for the Editions to offer different software (except where dictated by
>> enabling the hardware). It'd be better to just say that we don't offer
>> the Edition and instead suggest various spins for architectures where
>> this comes up. Or, where we decide it's important enough, to make sure
>> we use software that works across all relevant archs (or if possible to
>> fix it when it doesn't work).
>>
> And that's a completely valid approach if we choose to do it like this. I
> just feel we shouldn't be deciding this in the test list. It's a higher
> level policy than what we usually discuss regarding blocker criteria.
Stephen did say he planned to take it to FESCo
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1707