Secondary Architecture Status?
David Woodhouse
dwmw2 at infradead.org
Sat May 9 23:20:02 UTC 2009
On Sat, 2009-05-09 at 13:24 -0400, Jon Stanley wrote:
> FESCo conducted a brief discussion of moving PowerPC to a secondary
> architecture for Fedora 12. The general consensus is that since
> Fedora 12 development cycle has already begun, it is not appropriate
> for Fedora 12. However, for Fedora 13, FESCo is in favor of the idea.
> NB: THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL VOTE OR POSISTION, THAT WILL COME NEXT
> WEEK.
It was originally decreed by the Board that we wouldn't drop PowerPC
from being a primary architecture until some other architecture has
actually shown that the infrastructure for secondary architectures is
working.
We still don't have any secondary architectures gearing up to ship
Fedora 11 -- it would be really interesting to know why that is.
What technical barriers are still there -- why don't we have a release
yet?
I think that at this point it's acceptable to leave the fate of the port
to the people who most care about it -- but if there are infrastructure
or other problems which would block a release _regardless_ of how hard
the port maintainers work, that's less reasonable.
So a report from our existing secondary architecture teams on why they
haven't managed to release yet would be useful input to next week's
meeting.
--
David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre
David.Woodhouse at intel.com Intel Corporation
More information about the fedora-devel-list
mailing list