"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" (johannbg(a)gmail.com) said:
On 04/23/2012 08:14 PM, Jared K. Smith wrote:
>>> Fesco is saying that if you have hardware that can install via Anaconda,
>>> you must support installing via Anaconda. It's legitimate for you to
>>> also have other install mechanisms, and hardware that's incapable of
>>> supporting Anaconda installs isn't required to have them.
>Thanks for the clarification. I just wanted to make sure I understood that.
FESCo should make that more clear in the requirements but even if
they do they still make secondary architecture solely depended upon
the will and the time of someone within the "Installer team" to
implement the solution required to install Fedora for their
architecture before they can become primary architecture.
There are these magical things called patches that can be submitted.
Much like the secondary arch team would need to do so for the kernel
(also mentioned in the guidelines), the X maintainers (also mentioned
in the guidelines), etc. Unless you're suggesting secondary arch
maintainers are somehow unable to do so?
Fedora's about providing a consistent experience wherever possible; this
means using consistent interactive installation tools, consistent image
creation tools, and so on.