On Friday, May 16, 2014, 4:41:51 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Al Dunsmuir
> On Friday, May 16, 2014, 2:50:15 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Al Dunsmuir <al.dunsmuir(a)sympatico.ca>
>>> On Friday, May 16, 2014, 12:22:26 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> I know someone who has sparc, alpha hardware. I'm not
sure if they
> have an ia64 box taking up space in a closet somewhere.
Great. I know someone that has the hardware too. We still removed
support for both in the kernel spec because it was entirely moribund.
Hardware availability is often secondary to sustained effort from
people that have that hardware. History shows that people seem less
interested in keeping it running when they have to do the work or go
it alone in doing the work.
Human nature. We'll hope there is a different
>>> Making it so that ppc32 does not get built by default
is one thing,
>> Actually, it's a very very big thing. Those wishing to keep it alive
>> now need to come up with their own build hardware and build enviroment
>> setup. This is by far the largest hurdle, and if it isn't done
>> quickly the ppc32 secondary-secondary (thirdary?) arch will quickly
>> fall behind and into disrepair.
> Some folks have volunteered to host the builds, and provide build
> hardware. We'll see how that works out. If we do have to build outside
> the Fedora systems, there are going to be security considerations.
Outside build systems are probably going to be a requirement here.
That is how ARM started, so it's not unreasonable. I doubt you're
going to get Fedora Infrastructure to host any ppc32 hardware in the
colo due to both space and configuration issues (they only take rack
We need to see what can be done to make sure we can stay "Fedora"
under those circumstances. Being forced to be a Fedora-like remix
would be a shame if that is the only issue.
>>> but removing the ability to build ppc32 at all seems
>>> certainly premature given the current situation.
>> Which is why I sent it as a patch instead of simply committed it.
>> Discussion is requested. At a minimum though, I really would like to
>> drop the -smp flavor because it was of very limited use even when ppc
>> was a primary arch and it adds the most complication to the spec.
> Thanks for clarifying that.
> The problem with dropping smp is that I and other have smp hardware
> that we would like to use. That is also likely the hardware that
Yes, I've seen that. I'm willing to hold off on the removal
for a bit
to see how quickly your effort gets off the ground. I won't wait
To be clear, whatever is built is entirely supported by the team
the ppc32 work. Any bugs filed in Fedora bugzilla will get assigned
to the contact person.
That's pretty well the way it is with ARM even now, whether they like
it or not.
There is likely to be a rare occasion when ppc32 discovers an issue
that also affects other builds. Reproducing on on X86, X86_64, or
ppc64 should allow the problem to be addressed by the regular
Worst case, providing a remote login seems to be the standard
> would best be used for builds, should "build
native" and lack of a
> ppc32 cross compiler & binutils mean we can's use a ppc64 build host.
Cross-compiling is not allowed in Fedora anyway. Which is really
unfortunate because it is actually a very useful thing to do in
situations just like this.
That is the rule for release builds, but like ARM (and ARM64)
sometimes you have to use cross-compilation during bring up.
Unlike ARM, ppc64 does support user processes running in ppc32 mode
(via multi-arch). Do the current (up to today) ppc32 builds run on
ppc32 hardware, or do they run on ppc64 machines via multi-arch?
If there is ppc32-only hardware, why can't we continue to use it?