On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 15:15 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > By that definition, the primary arches don't qualify either. They're > built using RHEL + koji. Not that I really argue with the definition > mind you. Just interesting from a primary vs. secondary requirements > perspective. Oh, you mean underneath the buildsystem? Don't care. :) I'd prefer Fedora, but if it doesn't exist yet, I won't require it. > > > How are Secondary arch releases suppose to go about getting official > > > "Fedora" status? > > > > The secondary arch team exists, has a working koji buildsystem, is > > okayed by FESCo, and has packages (and or trees) ready by either the > > main Fedora timeline or a reasonable timeline defined by the secondary > > arch team. > > Back in Nov. 2006, there was also the concept that FPB had to approve a > secondary arch release before it could be called Fedora. Are we > delegating that to FESCo? This, of course, implies that some form of > review things occurs at some level. Outside of the scope of the FPB. ~spot -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
