On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 04:33:27PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures
>
> When I read that, i686 sure doesn't seem like it's primary. But you're
> right, it's definitely not secondary.
I would kinda quibble with that page. I would especially disagree with
the text "To put it simply: These are the architectures for which
Fedora will delay a release if they are not functional." That is *not*
the actual definition of a 'primary arch', and I think whoever added it
had an imperfect understanding.
I like wiki pages, but when they're wrong, they're wrong. =)
Maybe it's better to say that the definition (as you are using it) has
become more precise with time? The wiki history shows that phrasing as
being there since the 2008 import from MoinMoin.
Now we *COULD* absolutely enact some kind of stronger relationship
between primary and secondary arches, and state that by policy any arch
with no release-blocking deliverables can't possibly be a 'primary
arch' and thus i686 must be demoted. We could do lots of things! But
that is *not* the current state of affairs.
Someone should fix the wiki. For now, I've simply removed the line
about blocking the release, but it might be better to have more detail.
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader