On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 9:36 AM, Kamil Paral <kparal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 11:33 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > wrote: >> >> On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 04:52:05PM +0200, Kamil Paral wrote: >> > 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 >> >> Speaking as someone who "sells" this stuff, I think it'd be confusing >> for the Editions to offer different software (except where dictated by >> enabling the hardware). It'd be better to just say that we don't offer >> the Edition and instead suggest various spins for architectures where >> this comes up. Or, where we decide it's important enough, to make sure >> we use software that works across all relevant archs (or if possible to >> fix it when it doesn't work). >> > > And that's a completely valid approach if we choose to do it like this. I > just feel we shouldn't be deciding this in the test list. It's a higher > level policy than what we usually discuss regarding blocker criteria. Stephen did say he planned to take it to FESCo _______________________________________________ test mailing list -- test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
