On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Dennis Gilmore <dennis(a)ausil.us> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 12:03:28 -0800
Adam Williamson <awilliam(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-03-07 at 19:49 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 02:43:10PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > I won't speak for the rest of the WG as a whole, but in the few
> > > conversations I've had with people ARM wasn't something most
> > > thought was a target for Workstation. It might be feasible for
> > > interested people to produce Workstation ARM images, but I would
> > > be surprised if that were made a requirement at this point.
> > There's ARM hardware that is, at least theoretically, capable of
> > running Workstation and has the kind of form factor for which
> > Workstation is probably the appropriate product. As long as the ARM
> > team are willing to take responsibility for ensuring drivers and
> > install media work, and as long as there's someone doing QA, it
> > seems like something we should support in an official sense.
> I think it's reasonable to plan for its inclusion For The Future. From
> what I hear from dgilmore I'm not sure making it an official arch for
> F21 would be a great idea, but it seems sensible to keep it in mind
> for future inclusion while we're implementing the initial design. It
> certainly seems like workstation/desktop-class ARM hardware is a thing
> that's happening: there already are ARM-based systems probably
> powerful enough to run Workstation, the Utilite, the ARM Chromebooks.
> We don't have all the bits in place to support them *yet*, but it
> certainly seems like we will, and it seems reasonable to assume
> others will follow where they lead.
I am okay with planning it as a future things, Server plans to support
ARM, and Cloud has it listed as a future thing. I think we can make
things work in the f21 time frame on a subset of hardware. But I am
okay with it being nice to have, or slipping to f22. I raised my
concerns because today it looks like the only consideration is x86_64
with no possibility of anything else.
Ah, ok. We should probably put a limiter on the Tech Spec for F21, or
conversely say it's a living document like we do with the PRD.