Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

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

 



On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 10:08:54PM +0000, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:

> What is the justification for the need for the seperation in the firstplace?

You'd be fine with Fedora m68k? We have the separation because it's not 
just about scratching your own itch. Each additional supported 
architecture means that teams who are already overworked have to look 
after even more moving parts. Architecture-specific bugs are a pain for 
package maintainers to deal with. Attaching the Fedora name to poorly 
maintained ports weakens our brand. If we're going to support an 
architecture then its maintainers need to prove that they can maintain 
it.

-- 
Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel



[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux