On Fri, 2021-04-23 at 09:07 -0500, Brandon Nielsen wrote: > Thanks for following up. I was mostly trying to gauge if this was common > enough it should be a proposed blocker. > > Now, not to be a stick in the mud, but what other common armhfp hardware > is out there? If the Pi 3B+ isn't "up to the task", perhaps desktop > images that aren't expected work should just be dropped? I'm not sure a > desktop environment running on armhfp in a VM is that common of a use case. > > We're now looking at publicly releasing a version of Fedora that > apparently just doesn't work when all immediately obvious documentation > implies it should. I can't speak to "immediately obvious documentation", but it's worth remembering that Workstation on 32-bit ARM is not release blocking by policy. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/34/ReleaseBlocking the only release-blocking 32-bit ARM image left is minimal, and the release criteria preamble state: "The current set of release-blocking desktops for x86_64 is GNOME and KDE, and for aarch64 is GNOME. No desktop is release-blocking for 32- bit ARM." https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Basic_Release_Criteria#Basic_Release_Requirements If there is documentation or marketing that gives the impression that Workstation on 32-bit ARM is some sort of priority/"supported"/recommended/blocking/whatever environment, it should be changed. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha https://www.happyassassin.net _______________________________________________ test mailing list -- test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
