On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 12:21 PM, Burton, Ross <ross.bur...@intel.com>wrote:
> On 26 July 2013 12:10, Laszlo Papp <lp...@kde.org> wrote: > > As far as I can tell, the reference documentation does not write that > > anywhere what you are claiming here. So you are either incorrect, or I > need > > to file a bugreport to fix the documentation. > > I'd say it's a fair assumption that when the documentation says > "supported on FooLinux" we mean "supported on a typical and working > installation of FooLinux". > Yeah, right, "fair assumption", Typical and working" .... Needless to mention that is relative without an absolute measure. It is a fair assumption that there is no "fair assumption" in here as people differ. :) > > No doubt a common "normal" could be found for Arch as well, which is > what I > > have been referring to, in several emails of this thread now. I do not > see > > Arch exclusive, respectively. > > All Arch needs to be in the supported list is a long-term stable > release, and someone willing to do the testing. You cannot test every variation, but that is generic, and not arch specific. However, what certain other projects do is they test a certain configuration (or range of that). You're clearly > interested in being the latter, so when the former exists please say. > I already said because that is how I opened this thread. > Via Google I see there's been at least two attempts but nothing has > actually stuck around. > Well, there was the archserver project for that mean. Chakra was also freezing the core bits. Laszlo
_______________________________________________ yocto mailing list yocto@yoctoproject.org https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
