----- Original Message -----
From: "Dennis Gilmore" <dennis(a)ausil.us>
To: devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 9:02:48 AM
Subject: Re: F20 System Wide Change: ARM as primary Architecture
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 10:23:50 -0700
Brendan Conoboy <blc(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On 07/11/2013 03:55 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > I will note that it is not x86 alone. If one is simply going by "as
> > close to the current Fedora experience the current Primary offers",
> > then the PowerPC secondary arch team is actually ahead of ARM. I'm
> > not saying they are a better candidate, but I am pointing out that
> > the criteria Matthew is alluding to is being met by non-x86
> > architectures.
>
> I'm not up-to-date on the current condition of Power: Are you
> specifically referring to GNOME & KDE? If so I'd posit that this is
> because GNOME & KDE make a lot more sense on Power than they do on
> ARM. Developer energy goes where it's needed & wanted. Prior to this
> discussion nobody was lamenting the state of gnome on their low power
> ARM system. We're still building them of course- all the GNOME and
> KDE packages are built, they're just not getting used AFAIK.
I actually switched my chromebook over to KDE and used it on my
trimslice quite extensively. during the f19 cycle.
> > I don't believe that is true. ARM is useful, I want it to be a
> > Primary arch, but I fail to see how your middle ground below of
> > having it be primary in the build system is going to somehow grow
> > Fedora. I believe there are concerns that it will place additional
> > burden on package maintainers (like ppc did before there was a real
> > arch team for it), and that those concerns are valid.
>
> Are those concerns valid? By what measure? Can they be controverted
> by evidence? Thus far we have pro and con anecdotes.
>
> > And yet did not include any of that information in your proposal. I
> > believe build times have improved. I also believe that you should
> > show it in the proposal so that it is clear you are addressing prior
> > concerns. I'm appreciate the effort spent to speed up the kernel
> > build times, but the concern is global. Show the work done in the
> > proposal with some simple numbers.
i will look at throwing together a script to give us some comparisons
between the build times on the different arches.
Phew, finally something meaningful :) . I was afraid that the major (at least for me)
problem named "make it cost more time for packagers" will be plain ignored.
Can we get a comparison for majority of packages and get some real point that will become
too costy for packagers - aka build time of less than 20% of packages should be 5 or more
times longer. I personally thing this is pretty low bar but some might argue that it's
high so numbers put are just to serve as an example.
Alexander Kurtakov
Red Hat Eclipse team
> These are good suggestions- thanks for that.
>
> > Again, I would like to see ARM as Primary and I believe the ARM team
> > has done a rather good job. Promoting anything to Primary has never
> > been done before, so bear with us as we work through it.
>
> Absolutely. Change is hard, but if all goes well this one will be
> popular in hindsight :-)
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAlHfnAgACgkQkSxm47BaWffSCACeN+s7FHECOv2u6I6uWAXEcvdX
1W4AoK5y5BUyM49tLtSn+z0VTkBnMjIq
=txCb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
devel mailing list
devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel