On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 05:02:27PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote: > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Promotion is supposed to benefit Fedora, not the architecture being > > promoted. > > Yes, but that is _net_ benefit (benefit - cost). Requiring zero cost > to Fedora doesn't follow from that. We don't currently have the information we'd need to assess the cost. The majority of packages will build just fine on ARM and the maintainer will never need to care, but there are plenty of corner cases where that's not the case. That's why I keep mentioning the llvmpipe thing - this is a piece of critical infrastructure that was known to be broken for months, but nobody fixed it. If we promote ARM, who takes responsibility for fixing it? Someone from the ARM SIG, or the existing LLVM maintainer? If the latter, how much development effort is removed from x86 support in the process? That's why I'd like to see all of these things fixed *before* promotion. That way we've demonstrated that there's enough people willing and able to work on ensuring that ARM's supported that we know there's not going to be any significant cost to the rest of the distribution, and that way we can make an informed decision that the benefits outweigh the costs. -- Matthew Garrett | mjg59@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
