Re: New Blocker Criterion Proposal: Same default packages for all arches

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

 



On Tue, 2017-05-09 at 19:39 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> However, it seems that our
> blocker criteria do not describe one institutional guideline that we've
> been trying to follow: that alternative architectures should be
> delivering the same content as the "primary" architectures.

Nitpick: ARM *is* a primary architecture. x86_64 and armhfp are the
current Fedora primary architectures. All others are 'alternat(iv)e
architectures' (the words 'alternate' and 'alternative' seem to be used
as if they were interchangeable, in the various pages discussing this).

Ref: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures

> What I would like to propose (wordsmithing welcome) is an addendum to
> the Beta criteria under the Installer->Default Package Set requirements:
> 
> "The default package set installed from blocking media must be the same
> on all architectures for that Edition, Spin or netinstall except for
> packages whose sole purpose is hardware enablement for one or more
> architectures."
> 
> Breaking it down, I think we should have an explicit criterion that
> installing the default package set for e.g. XFCE spin on armv7 must be
> the same set of packages you would get in a default install of e.g. XFCE
> spin on x86_64.

Well, we weren't talking about only changing the default on ARM, in the
meeting. The implication was that we'd change the default for x86_64 as
well. Since about three weeks ago we don't technically *have* to, I
think, because we tweaked comps to allow specifying packages by arch,
but we've not actually used this at all yet.

The wrinkle in this situation is that Xfce is *only* a release-blocking 
environment *for ARM*. It is not a release blocking environment for
x86_64. So I don't think the proposed criterion would actually *mean*
much in this case. If someone actually decided to push for changing the
Xfce default browser as a resolution to the bug (rather than fixing
Firefox), telling them they have to change it for x86_64 as well as ARM
probably wouldn't dissuade them. They'd just say "Fine, we'll do that."
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
_______________________________________________
test mailing list -- test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Photo Sharing]     [Yosemite Forum]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux