Fedora Board Recap 2008-FEB-19

Bill Nottingham notting at redhat.com
Mon Feb 25 20:01:39 UTC 2008

Doug Chapman (doug.chapman at hp.com) said: 
> > For other arches, I can't see how it's not fair to have them provide
> > those resources (people, storage, machines, etc.)
> Where did this come from?  Nobody asked for Fedora to provide people or
> hardware for ia64.  We are only asking for the bits to be hosted along
> with the other arches (which is what I was told would be the case).

Bit hosting == storage. It's hardware, esssentially. Considering we
have to find storage to archive releases so we can actually manage
to release Fedora 9 for x86, secondary arches *do* add a bit of a
crunch here.

> You misinterpret me here.  I and the rest of the Fedora-ia64 team are
> very much devoted to a free and usable Fedora on ia64.  I have spent
> countless hours (in addition to my RHEL duties) trying to make Fedora
> better (and certainly not just on ia64).  Please don't belittle that.

You stated that your major concern with getting Fedora for ia64 up was
RHEL 6. Apologies if I misinterpreted that.


More information about the fedora-advisory-board mailing list