Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-factory (435 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-factory] [RFC] OpenSUSE Distribution Tiers Policy
  • From: Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 3 Jul 2020 12:31:03 -0400
  • Message-id: <CAEg-Je9usHZOa5dPQGBMQtiCPPhsuhO+C+wZ88gqd=uAJxGOxA@mail.gmail.com>
On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 12:29 PM Dirk Müller <dirk@xxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxxxx
To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@xxxxxxxxxxxx

< Previous Next >
Follow Ups