RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements
jkeating at redhat.com
Tue Mar 20 19:02:15 UTC 2012
On 3/20/12 11:50 AM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 03/20/2012 11:20 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> Honestly I've yet to see a succinct list of reasons why secondary arch
>> is no longer good enough for the ARM effort, for at least the next few
>> releases. I may have missed it in the flurry of emails and debate,
>> anybody care to recap it for clarity?
> This was one of the points raised by FESCo yesterday, and it's a fine
> question that we'll be answering better, elsewhere, in due course. That
> said, where does this question lead? If we explain what we're trying to
> get to, will it somehow overcome the objections raised such as build
> system performance? For the sake of coherent discussion, let's assume
> that we have good reasons why we want to move to primary, and we can
> keep the subject on what the requirements are for doing so. The topic at
> hand isn't even ARM specific, it's just been prompted by us ARM
> aficionados. Again, I understand that there do need to be good reasons,
> that's just not the subject of this particular thread. So, other than
> build system performance, what are the requirements you'd like to see met?
Knowing the reasons you want to upgrade to PA is important because it
will help us judge whether or not the cost of the upgrade is worth the
result, or whether or not the result could be obtained while still
I don't think promoting a SA to PA is something that can be generically
covered, each such potential action needs to be looked at, discussed,
weighed, measured, etc... To know whether or not we as a project should
absorb the cost of promoting ARM to PA, we need to know what the benefit
is, or what the expected benefit would be.
As for the other requirements, I believe there are enough sub-threads
hashing that out :)
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
More information about the devel