From: "Peter Robinson" <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com>
To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 9:17:49 PM
Subject: Re: F20 System Wide Change: ARM as primary Architecture
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Josh Boyer" <jwboyer(a)gmail.com>
>> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora"
>> Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 2:45:53 PM
>> Subject: Re: F20 System Wide Change: ARM as primary Architecture
>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Jaroslav Reznik <jreznik(a)redhat.com>
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> >> Adam Williamson (awilliam(a)redhat.com) said:
>> >> > 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
>> >> > it)
>> >> >
>> >> > The addition of a new arch with quite a pile of 'supported
>> >> > would certainly raise the priority of having such a thing.
>> >> > already hitting a problem with our *current* primary arches in
>> >> > area, though, in that the status of the multi-live, multi-arch
>> >> > cloud/appliance images is rather unclear).
>> >> Plus, in relation to this - the llvmpipe issue brings up that one of
>> >> the 'release blocking desktops' *does not work*. This would,
>> >> definition,
>> >> block the release unless we intend to have different criteria for ARM
>> >> as a
>> >> primary arch.
>> > I don't see a problem with different set of blocking desktops for ARM,
>> > even
>> > as primary architecture. But it's really about resources - do we have
>> > people
>> > willing to work for example on LXDE (I'd say more resources friendly
>> > current ARMs) - not saying there are no people, but more to support it
>> > as
>> > blocking desktop, if QA would be able to validate three desktops on two
>> > different platforms... And as we try to avoid "default" world in
>> > now,
>> > let's have LXDE "default" in some cases.
>> Is LXDE considered a release blocking desktop? I honestly don't know.
>> I also don't think it matters whether LXDE or FVMW2 or Gnome is the
>> default desktop on ARM. The criteria should probably be that it ships
>> with a desktop that is considered release blocking. If LXDE isn't
>> one, then perhaps it should be made so. The goal here shouldn't be
>> "we have a desktop". It should be "we have a desktop experience
>> is the same on all primary architectures". To that end, whichever
>> desktop is picked should be release blocking and it should function
>> the same on all primary architectures.
>> > For build times, Dennis has numbers prepared, we decided to let it out
>> > of
>> > the proposal and send it for discussion.
>> There was significant concern on this during the first time this came
>> up for discussion. I think the proposal should at least include a
>> link to the overall build time improvements. Clearly there has been
>> improvement, so make the proposal show that.
> I still have serious concerns regarding build times:
> * arm - https://arm.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=150248
> * current primary -
> This is still too huge gap - roughly 10 times slower. If ARM will become
> primary arch I hope this is an exception and not the general rule.
That build gap is due to java not being the fully accelerated one, I
know there's work being done there but it's been a while since I heard
the latest state, the last of which was "soon"
Yeah, I know the reasons but still this would make it really hard for us to push changes
or test a build fix. I would like all archs to have equal attention but not at the price
I still have bad memories from ppc building eclipse for similar time and thus causing huge
delays. We usually update most of the Eclipse packages simultaneously (build order
matters) as they are released on the same date if builds are gonna take that will be big
hurdle for us.
3-4 times slower is acceptable but more than that becomes a problem.
Red Hat Eclipse Team
devel mailing list