On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 08:27:09AM +0000, Riku Voipio wrote: >On Thu, Jun 28, 2018 at 08:11:14PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: >> * Niels Thykier: >> >> > armel/armhf: >> > ------------ >> > >> > * Undesirable to keep the hardware running beyond 2020. armhf VM >> > support uncertain. (DSA) >> > - Source: [DSA Sprint report] >> >> Fedora is facing an issue running armhf under virtualization on arm64: >> >> <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1572916> > >I think you mean: > >https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1576593
Yeah, that looks more likely. I can see that Ard is already trying to help debug it. But things have gone quiet for a couple of weeks, at least in the public discussion. ... >> It's also not clear that this configuration has substantial vendor or >> community support. This makes me concerned that virtualization is a viable >> path forward here. > >I understand your concern. It would be surprising if this specific bug doesn't >get found and fixed. It's probably stuck because everyone thinks it's >probably someone elses bug ;) Yeah, that's my thought too. :-) >I still think the armhf vm on arm64 is the only reasonable path forward medium >term. The existing arm64 hw that suport arm32 vm's is still around and >infinitely better than native aarch32 builder hw, and should still be viable >for some time. Nod. The "fun" thing we see is that quite a few of the biggest AArch64 CPUs are A64-only, but there's still a selection of things available that I think look OK. I'll post separately in a moment about that... -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com Is there anybody out there?
