[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [fab] Architecture Policy.

On Thu, 2006-11-16 at 11:08 -0500, Christopher Blizzard wrote:
> 1. That the arches with very little market share (ppc, s390, ia64) are 
> part of the build process and they die on a regular basis. 

Really? That ('on a regular basis') isn't my experience, whether you're
talking about build machines dying (except the S390) or whether you're
talking about the occasional compiler bugs or failure to build
individual packages.

Every architecture will suffer occasional build machine outages,
compiler bugs or compile failures in packages -- but I'm certainly not
aware that PowerPC in particular has more than its fair share.

It sounds like you're just saying "Making a distribution is hard. Let's
do less of it".

> 2. Encouraging development for the community that cares about the 
> smaller arches.  Let's face it, lots of interesting and smart people 
> spend time on the smaller arches.  They are passionate and they care, 
> and their work almost always encourages the whole of the project.  And 
> you never know when a big project might come along that uses one of 
> those arches, and you want to be ready when it does.

It's OK. There seems to be a lot of pressure to use Ubuntu in the one
we're thinking of already -- I'm sure they'll cope if they have to drop
Fedora because we mess up the FC7/PPC release with a new process that
isn't ready for production yet :)


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]