On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 04:33:27PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures > > > > When I read that, i686 sure doesn't seem like it's primary. But you're > > right, it's definitely not secondary. > > I would kinda quibble with that page. I would especially disagree with > the text "To put it simply: These are the architectures for which > Fedora will delay a release if they are not functional." That is *not* > the actual definition of a 'primary arch', and I think whoever added it > had an imperfect understanding. > > I like wiki pages, but when they're wrong, they're wrong. =) Maybe it's better to say that the definition (as you are using it) has become more precise with time? The wiki history shows that phrasing as being there since the 2008 import from MoinMoin. > Now we *COULD* absolutely enact some kind of stronger relationship > between primary and secondary arches, and state that by policy any arch > with no release-blocking deliverables can't possibly be a 'primary > arch' and thus i686 must be demoted. We could do lots of things! But > that is *not* the current state of affairs. Someone should fix the wiki. For now, I've simply removed the line about blocking the release, but it might be better to have more detail. -- Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
