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

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

 




On 05/12/2017 06:17 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> 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


https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1707


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
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