On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 12:29 PM Dirk Müller <dirk@dmllr.de> wrote:
Hi Neal,
Thanks for the feedback - you're touching the point I also feel least comfortable with. so lets dive right into it. Funny that you bring up Fedora as a counter example. from the first line of: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures#Primary_Architectures
"There are *two* *tiers* of architectures with Fedora support"
On the other hand, Debian seems to call it 'supported architecture' and 'ports'. I don't like the term 'supported' as that is a trigger word in other contexts..
I think we should just straight up drop this idea of tiering. Is there a good reason we can't just go with primary and secondary architectures as other distros (Debian, Fedora, etc.) do?
I used the term Tier because I was looking for one word that includes 'main' and 'ports', which are the two levels/architecture groupings I am aiming for.
I agree that 'Tier 1/premium' is not a good wording. I didn't find a better one. Primary and secondary is maybe also not inclusive-language enough.
For me the most natural way would be to describe them as 'main' and 'ports', and that's what we used most commonly everywhere so far. I just need a word for 'both'. Maybe it's just 'Architecture Policy'.
So I rename it to 'openSUSE Distribution Architecture Policy' ?
That seems like a great solution. Agree?
Calling it that makes sense. Perhaps we can go with "main" and "alternate" for architectures, since that makes more sense from the perspective you're talking about. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org