http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/SecondaryArchitectures
Tom "spot" Callaway
tcallawa at redhat.com
Tue Jul 10 20:31:07 UTC 2007
On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 15:15 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> By that definition, the primary arches don't qualify either. They're
> built using RHEL + koji. Not that I really argue with the definition
> mind you. Just interesting from a primary vs. secondary requirements
> perspective.
Oh, you mean underneath the buildsystem? Don't care. :) I'd prefer
Fedora, but if it doesn't exist yet, I won't require it.
> > > How are Secondary arch releases suppose to go about getting official
> > > "Fedora" status?
> >
> > The secondary arch team exists, has a working koji buildsystem, is
> > okayed by FESCo, and has packages (and or trees) ready by either the
> > main Fedora timeline or a reasonable timeline defined by the secondary
> > arch team.
>
> Back in Nov. 2006, there was also the concept that FPB had to approve a
> secondary arch release before it could be called Fedora. Are we
> delegating that to FESCo? This, of course, implies that some form of
> review things occurs at some level.
Outside of the scope of the FPB.
~spot
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list