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

Re: [fab] Architecture Policy.



David Woodhouse (dwmw2 infradead org) said: 
> 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 highly doubt that. The platforms we support for RHEL have continually
had issues throughout RHEL 5 that show that they *aren't* being tested
with Fedora.

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

It's not about who's looking after it. By that standard, Sparc is more
first-class than PPC, as there are more RH people working on Sparc stuff.

It's about what there is market demand and user demand for. By that standard,
PPC lags horribly, and it's only getting worse.

> 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.

Have you *READ* the proposal? We're increasing the ability of people to
fix arch-specific issues. If you want to continue to intentionally misread
and misrepresent to suit your own needs, fine. I'll send you a hammer and
some spikes, I'm sure you can find some nice large pieces of wood locally
for yourself.

Bill


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