On 2013-07-09 6:00, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
= Proposed System Wide Change: ARM as primary Architecture =
The kernel is now a multi platform unified ARMv7 kernel supporting a
SoCs with support expanding with each new upstream release. We build a
and LPAE variant similar to i686. There is an ARM specific (ARMv7 and
kernel maintainer working in collaboration with the Fedora kernel team.
releases are composed using the exact same tooling as used for the
architectures. Disk images for development boards are generated by
creator and the kickstarts live in spin-kickstarts, they take a similar
as the livecds on primary but are shipped as an OEM disk image, and
primary initial-setup is used to do final user configuration. Like
is used to generate an install tree, PXE install trees are created but
bootloaders don't support isofs so ISO images aren't currently created.
So, this raises a few questions: with ARM as a primary arch, exactly
what set of release images would we be supporting? Would we expect to
test each device-specific image at each release point and verify each
one of them was correct? Or would we just test a subset and 'trust' that
the others worked? Do 'we' as a project have access to all the necessary
hardware for testing each of the images?
(Personally, I have an XO 1.75 and a Trimslice lying around here
somewhere; I don't know what else anyone else has squirrelled away).
Someone later in the thread asked whether the 'ARM team' would be on the
hook for QAing the entire kaboodle. Technically with ARM as a primary
arch it would be QA's responsibility to ensure that whatever images we
considered part of the 'primary release' were of releasable quality, but
we are not miracle workers, and we cannot test what we don't have: so
we'd either need to buy a bunch of test devices or rely on people who
already have an interest in using ARM and some ARM devices - so, the ARM
team... - to act under the auspices of the 'QA team'.
I've had an entry on my todo list _forever_ to complete the
'deliverables SOP' I started several releases ago:
(I don't really like the current layout, I was planning on revising it)
The addition of a new arch with quite a pile of 'supported images' would
certainly raise the priority of having such a thing. (We're already
hitting a problem with our *current* primary arches in this area,
though, in that the status of the multi-live, multi-arch and
cloud/appliance images is rather unclear).
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora