Feedback on secondary architecute promotion requirements draft

[Kevin Kofler]

Peter Robinson wrote:
> It's already been stated that 3D isn't a blocker for PA, but that the
> needs to be reasonable GUI support similar to that of the mainline
> project.

"reasonable GUI support" already includes 3D in GNOME, and with the 
developments in Qt 5, chances are the same will become true in KDE Plasma 
too in a few months.

Now the "reasonable 3D" criterion can in principle be met by llvmpipe, but 
CPU power is not what ARM is strong at.

I think sweeping that issue under the carpet is not going to help. I don't 
think ARM is ready for primary architecture status as long as the upstream 
status of Free OpenGL drivers is what it is now.

> I agree it's hard to make it exhaustive but ultimately it can't be a
> moving target with extra items added and the goal posts moved every
> time it's reached.

Why not, if new issues are discovered which nobody thought of before? Would 
you rather sweep them under the carpet just so that you can stick that 
"primary" label on your work? The overall goal should be to do what's best 
for the Fedora project as a whole, not to promote your architecture as the 
goal in itself.

> Of course there are unknown risks, there's also unknown risks every
> time a core package is bumped, or each time infra/rel-eng change
> something, but there's benefits to those changes as well. Just like
> that there are unknown risks and possible issues with promotion of a
> new architecture but there are also known benefits which is ultimately
> why we've asked FESCo to create these criteria, different people put
> different benefits to the criteria but ultimately personally I believe
> it will be a net gain for Fedora.

But the important question to ask is always: Do the benefits outweigh the 
risks (and the known drawbacks)? If new risks are discovered, they can 
outweigh the benefits.

        Kevin Kofler