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
