[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/TomCallaway/SecondaryArchitectures

Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
On Tue, 2007-07-10 at 12:05 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:

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.

A couple of additional questions on that front...

First, I assume that secondary arches can have a subset of packages
from the main Fedora release. It might be a good idea to specifically
say that. I dont know how to quantify it, but it also probably needs
to be a reasonably large subset for it to make sense.

Second, can secondary architectures go beyond the primary architectures
in terms of feature support? For e.g., can a secondary architecture
include a cross-compiler toolchain?

Along the same lines, can secondary architectures have modified spec
files that go beyond fixing build/run-time issues. For e.g., can a
secondary architecture take a large package and further split it into
more granular subsets for the purpose of better footprint control.

Essentially, these are real things that would be relevant for "embedded"
architectures (like ARM). And, what I am trying to get to is what would
make sense within the context of Fedora, and what may be features that
need to be added in a derived from Fedora (but not Fedora) distribution.


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]