Hi! Some "me, too" here: Josh Boyer schrieb: > First, I think secondary arches are a good idea. +1 > [...] > There are two key issues that are > essentially taking a great idea and sinking it immediately. In order > for secondary arches to really work, I believe the arch teams need to be > able to host repositories along side the primary arches on > fedoraproject.org, and binary isos for the arches (if available) should > also be hosted. +1 >[...] > "But we can't BUILD the packages on these arches, so why should we host > them?" What difference does that make? If the Board is going to allow > secondary arches built on servers _outside_ of the Fedora buildsys to > carry the Fedora name, then explain to me why those packages cannot sit > on fedoraproject.org. +1 > Also, hosting repositories/isos outside of fedoraproject.org basically > means those arches lose another major benefit, which is mirroring. The > fedora mirror structure is fairly good, and trying to achieve something > of similar numbers will simply be very difficult to accomplish. Mirrors > can choose not to mirror secondary arches if they wish. Let them make > that choice. +1 It will will probably also lead to questions like "why doesn't the yum.conf from <insert forum, faq, irc, whatever here> not working on arch foo". I'd like to avoid that. > I strongly urge the Board to consider these points before coming to a > final policy for secondary arches. I want to see this change turn into > a great move for Fedora, and not just a "dumping of work" as some are > already perceiving it to be. +1 CU thl _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board-readonly mailing list fedora-advisory-board-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board-readonly
