On Mon, 2006-11-20 at 11:29 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >>>>> "TC" == Tom 'spot' Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > TC> I'd agree with this. PPC should be a secondary arch for a variety > TC> of reasons, none of which having to do with its code quality. > > Oddly, I can't think of a really good reason why it shouldn't be a > primary arch. Is it really that much overhead for us? And if it is > made secondary, is there any path for it to make it back to primary > status? What would the criteria be? I really see the only distinction as: 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. So, if PPC/SPARC/IA64 rises again, the userbase grows to huge numbers, then we reconsider it as a primary arch, but otherwise, we let motivated community push it. Primary/Secondary not having any distinction as to quality of the platform or the code within it. This is not a "Second class" distinction. ~spot _______________________________________________ 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
