Doug Chapman (doug.chapman@xxxxxx) said: > > For other arches, I can't see how it's not fair to have them provide > > those resources (people, storage, machines, etc.) > > Where did this come from? Nobody asked for Fedora to provide people or > hardware for ia64. We are only asking for the bits to be hosted along > with the other arches (which is what I was told would be the case). Bit hosting == storage. It's hardware, esssentially. Considering we have to find storage to archive releases so we can actually manage to release Fedora 9 for x86, secondary arches *do* add a bit of a crunch here. > You misinterpret me here. I and the rest of the Fedora-ia64 team are > very much devoted to a free and usable Fedora on ia64. I have spent > countless hours (in addition to my RHEL duties) trying to make Fedora > better (and certainly not just on ia64). Please don't belittle that. You stated that your major concern with getting Fedora for ia64 up was RHEL 6. Apologies if I misinterpreted that. Bill _______________________________________________ fedora-advisory-board mailing list fedora-advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-advisory-board
