RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

Kevin Kofler kevin.kofler at chello.at
Tue Mar 20 19:14:14 UTC 2012

Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> 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.

It doesn't make sense to discuss requirements for becoming a primary 
architecture without discussing whether it should be considered in the first 
place. I don't see ANY reasons why it's needed. And as I wrote in my first 
reply in this thread, I don't think there should be a generic process for 
becoming a primary architecture at all, it should be a change done only in 
very exceptional cases.

        Kevin Kofler

More information about the devel mailing list