On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 05:02:27PM +0200, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Matthew Garrett
> Promotion is supposed to benefit Fedora, not the architecture being
Yes, but that is _net_ benefit (benefit - cost). Requiring zero cost
to Fedora doesn't follow from that.
We don't currently have the information we'd need to assess the cost.
The majority of packages will build just fine on ARM and the maintainer
will never need to care, but there are plenty of corner cases where
that's not the case. That's why I keep mentioning the llvmpipe thing -
this is a piece of critical infrastructure that was known to be broken
for months, but nobody fixed it. If we promote ARM, who takes
responsibility for fixing it? Someone from the ARM SIG, or the existing
LLVM maintainer? If the latter, how much development effort is removed
from x86 support in the process?
That's why I'd like to see all of these things fixed *before* promotion.
That way we've demonstrated that there's enough people willing and able
to work on ensuring that ARM's supported that we know there's not going
to be any significant cost to the rest of the distribution, and that way
we can make an informed decision that the benefits outweigh the costs.
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org