RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

Jesse Keating 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 
staying SA.

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 :)

Jesse Keating
Fedora -- FreedomĀ² is a feature!

More information about the devel mailing list