On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:52:58PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote: > On 03/20/2012 12:44 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > >Now the ultra ridiculous: How about secondary architecture requirements > >demoted as-is to tertiary. And create substantially more aggressive > >requirements for secondary architecture (in which ARM would be placed), yet > >are not identical requirements to primary architecture requirements? > > Yes, the all-or-nothing mindset between secondary and primary is > almost certainly the root of the problem. We want more > representation in Fedora than being a secondary connotes,
Maybe you should begin by convincing package maintainers that ARM is a good platform (if it is; I do not know) and that they want to use it, instead of (figuratively speaking) shoving it down their throats by means of FESCo decision to promote ARM to primary arch. If you attract enough people, the transition may just happen "naturally"... D. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
