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

Re: [fab] Architecture Policy.



On Mon, 2006-11-20 at 11:34 -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote:
> Primary: Red Hat drives the arch forward, ensures that it works, or
> else, Fedora is in a bad bad place.
> Secondary: Community drives the arch forward, ensures that it works,
> but if it doesn't, the majority of the Fedora universe remains intact.

Given that we have RHEL on PPC, Red Hat is going to support it in the
end anyway. With my Red Hat on, I observe that we do get a lot of
benefit from the existence of Fedora/PPC -- just as RHEL in general
benefits from the existence of Fedora. I spend Red Hat time on looking
after Fedora/PowerPC, and will continue to do so in addition to my own
"spare" time.

Using _your_ classification, PowerPC sounds more like it fits in the
'primary' camp -- there are Red Hat folks actively maintaining it.

I don't really care about the classification though -- as long as the
FC7/PowerPC and future releases still happen in sync with the other
architectures, ends up on the same mirrors, etc. And as long as we don't
start to let package-monkeys ship crap code with a 'works for me on
little-endian machine with signed char' defence.

It does seem like keeping PowerPC in the 'primary' set of architectures
for now is the only way to achieve that, and I'm pleased that you agree
with that observation. Once we've had a successful FC7/SPARC release we
can revisit the question and I'll care a whole lot less about the
result.

-- 
dwmw2


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