On 07/10/2013 09:13 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Fedora is an operating system that supports a range of desktop
environments, defaulting to the GNOME desktop environment. An OS that
supports headless servers but not desktop environments might be based on
Fedora, but it wouldn't be Fedora. As such, it wouldn't be suited to
being a Fedora PA.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish whether to read
these messages as high standards or hyperbole. Maybe your Fedora means
desktop OS, but my Fedora has more facets than that. Fedora Primary is
not some Platonic Form embodied by x86; that would be better described
as Fedora Fantasy.
The all or nothing element in the above simply serves to discourage
further contribution and is harming Fedora's growth. The relentless "I
don't want ARM to sully the good name of Fedora" is absurd: User for
user, ARM is considerably more popular than Fedora. Is your definition
of "Primary" a sacred idea that is responsible for Fedora's success? If
held dear for too long it will be the well known idea responsible for
Please consider the idea that there is a useful middle ground "Primary"
Primary Release/Primary Build system
Primary Build system/Secondary Release
Secondary Build system/Secondary Release
It might be multidimensional:
Primary Desktop---Secondary Desktop
Primary Server----Secondary Server
15 months ago:
There were concerns about reliability- we moved to enterprise hardware
There were concerns about build times, particularly that of the kernel:
We bought the fastest hardware available, moved to a unified kernel
architecture and sped up builds many-fold.
There were concerns about kernel and toolchain maintainship: We hired
and/or tasked kernel, glibc, gcc, and other engineers.
There were concerns about releases being held up: We released F19 Beta
and GA on the same day as x86.
There were concerns about releng: Releng wrote the new promotion proposal.
There were concerns about QA&Release criteria: We copied most of
There were concerns about the installer: We're using anaconda and
standard image creation tooling.
There were concerns about desktop users: All supported platforms that
have graphical hardware have a desktop.
The list goes on and on. For any of the above a person can be small and
pick out tiny details where they aren't satisfied, but if you're one of
the people who is going to do that, please say the following:
"I object to armv7hl moving to primary because of $DEFECT, but if
$DEFECT is remedied by $MILESTONE, I will then support the move of
armv7hl to primary". You define $DEFECT and $MILESTONE and we can have
a productive discussion.
At this time I think it is quite reasonable to ask for the build systems
to be merged. Whether you call it Primary, Secondary, or some new
middle-of-the-ground word, it's progress.
Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / blc(a)redhat.com