On 7/4/20 9:33 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 3:54 PM Dirk Müller <dirk@dmllr.de> wrote:
Hi Neal,
Am Fr., 3. Juli 2020 um 20:11 Uhr schrieb Neal Gompa <ngompa13@gmail.com>:
'Primary Architecture' and 'Architecture port'. To me, this doesn't make sense because they're both ports, in essence.
Only one of the two is called that way ;)
I admit I'm lacking a better wording. I am struggling with the Fedora and Debian wordings (and I think I mentioned that in an earlier email), and 'port' however bad or misplaced it may be, at least has some 'openSUSE' historic meaning (and as I got pointed out, this conflicts quite a bit with the *BSD definition of ports).
I don't want this to become a naming bikeshedding exercise, so if anyone has a better suggestion, I happily take it. Otherwise thats what it is for now.
What do we need the distinction for?
We don't support all Architectures equally, having a clear way to show users what level of support they can expect for each architecture seems pretty sensible, maybe you could get away from needing to come up with names by providing some form of reference table instead, but 2 categories with names probably meets our current needs. -- Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B