RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements
pbrobinson at gmail.com
Wed Mar 21 13:27:13 UTC 2012
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 7:13 AM, David Tardon <dtardon at redhat.com> wrote:
> 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"...
There is no doubt it is a good platform, it's not about shoving it
down people's throats, it's about making Fedora available on millions
of devices that are cheap and low power. The transition is happening
already and it happening due to cost and power, whether that be in the
data centre running on servers or in the developing world. You just
have to look at the millions of ARM based devices being sold in China,
India and other parts of Asia.
More information about the devel