On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 6:35 PM, Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2017-05-11 at 17:40 +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: >> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 8:24 PM, Mike Ruckman <roshi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 04:52:05PM +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: >> > > I don't really understand this, and I haven't read the meeting log, so I >> > > apologize if my questions are dumb. >> > >> > I was in the meeting, and I was confused - so your questions aren't >> > dumb. :) >> > >> > > Why would we dictate that Editions/Spins can't use different software on >> > > different architectures? It might make perfect sense to use browser X on >> > > x86_64 because it's very good, but use browser Y on i386 because of memory >> > > limitations of i386 arch (browser Y needing much less memory than browser >> > > X). Similarly, if shell A no longer supports i386, why would be ban it from >> > > being preinstalled on x86_64? i386 would have shell B instead. Those are >> > > random examples, but it seems to me that they can be completely valid. If >> > > there's such requirement that Editions/Spins can't install different >> > > software on different arches, I think that should be established by FESCo, >> > > not us. >> > >> > I concur with Kamil on this one, I think there's valid reasons a package >> > set might be different based on the arch. If this is indeed the >> > direction we want to go, I think FESCo needs to make that call. >> >> FESCo has stated for alternate architectures to be considered >> "primary" that they should be the same and consistent as the other >> architectures for years (going back to F-18 or earlier) so for this to >> change now is inconsistent in what's been stated to date. We've been >> thumped numerous times for differences. > > But...we don't actually have the same package set per arch, already. We > have different bootloaders and different bootloader config tools on > different arches, just to give a trivial example. > > "Obviously" this is different, but encoding things that are "obvious" > to humans in the release criteria is sometimes quite hard...:) To quote Stephen's proposal: "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." So bootloaders are kind of hardware enablement/specific, and ultimately don't affect the outcome which is a booted Fedora system. _______________________________________________ test mailing list -- test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
