On 14/08/16 08:49, Peter Robinson wrote:
See that's where we disagree, there are 1000s of users that use those, you could also argue that the vast majority of Fedora instances aren't desktop platforms but servers/VMs and other non desktop usecases (I know of one company running Fedora on over a million ARM devices) yet we still care about and ship various desktops too or some of the weird 18K odd source packages that we also distribute the binaries for. There are users of these out in the wider Fedora ecosystem that benefit from all these different options and even though they don't fit in YOUR definition of a "real world" user it doesn't mean they're not. Fedora is very much about options and diversity whether that be people, language, location, desktop or architecture :-)
I'm sure most of us would love to support all these platforms in principle but that doesn't really help with the practical problems of trying to do so.
The change proposal states, for example, that there is either access to hardware or the secondary architecture teams will help but that doesn't really square with my experience. The secondary architecture teams just open bugs and punt things back to the packager and none of these new architectures seems to have any hardware listed in the wiki.
So with that I'll go back to trying to find a way to reproduce the aarch64 bug you reported on one of my packages the other day...
Tom -- Tom Hughes (tom@xxxxxxxxxx) http://compton.nu/ -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
