Thanks Brendan. My Fedora doesn't even use a GNOME desktop. I've happily used XFCE
for years. And I make no secret that I care about servers more than desktops (you know,
that part of the market where general purpose Linux has a huge footprint and stands a
chance). I would hate to look back in five years and say "yea, Hyperscale ARM servers
took over and Red Hat was totally there, but Fedora missed the boat entirely". Move
with the times. Fedora wants to embrace the new and revolutionary? ARM is powering some
very exciting disruption and Fedora should not be sitting on the sidelines naval gazing
and pining for the declining desktop of yesteryear.
--
Sent from my iPad
On Jul 11, 2013, at 7:05, Brendan Conoboy <blc(a)redhat.com> wrote:
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 its failure.
Please consider the idea that there is a useful middle ground "Primary" and
"Secondary".
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 in PHX.
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 Primary's
procedures.
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
--
devel mailing list
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel