Brendan Conoboy (blc@xxxxxxxxxx) said: > On 07/11/2013 12:37 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > >Well, as I said (and you cut out) > >... > >I do know what some people want ARM to be in terms of dense > >hypserscale servers (32/64-bit)... but the community that would be using > >Fedora ARM does seem to be targeting a wider array than that. > >... > > > >The F19 ARM release released 5 desktop images. You seem to be arguing that > >the required featureset of ARM as a primary arch should only be for headless > >deployment, but the ARM community itself is saying otherwise. > > Interests differ between participants. If this was the only > objection to moving ARM to the primary build system I would say > let's drop graphics from official Fedora ARM support for the > purposes of the move and make all graphical images respins or > remixes. If I'm understanding you, you would prefer that ARM be blessed with the stamp of being a 'primary' arch at the cost of dropping release targets, images, and featuresets that are made by and for the community now. I don't think I can support that - it seems awfully unfriendly to the community that exists now. Bill -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
