RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements
dtardon at redhat.com
Wed Mar 21 07:13:49 UTC 2012
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:52:58PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 03/20/2012 12:44 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> >Now the ultra ridiculous: How about secondary architecture requirements demoted as-is to tertiary. And create substantially more aggressive requirements for secondary architecture (in which ARM would be placed), yet are not identical requirements to primary architecture requirements?
> Yes, the all-or-nothing mindset between secondary and primary is
> almost certainly the root of the problem. We want more
> representation in Fedora than being a secondary connotes,
Maybe you should begin by convincing package maintainers that ARM is a
good platform (if it is; I do not know) and that they want to use it,
instead of (figuratively speaking) shoving it down their throats by
means of FESCo decision to promote ARM to primary arch. If you attract
enough people, the transition may just happen "naturally"...
More information about the devel