On Mon, 2012-04-23 at 12:59 -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> It's not about anaconda specifically, it's about having a standard
> installer experience across all PAs to the extent technically sensible.
> Maybe something else will supplant anaconda in time.
FWIW, in writing the QA release crite
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Brian C. Lane wrote:
> That's why I recently added EC2 support to livemedia-creator. Since I
> don't have an EC2 account it is untested -- help would be appreciated.
Awesome. I'll try to check it out in the next week or so.
> We should be able to make images usi
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 04:13:40PM -0400, Jared K. Smith wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > Because if you have hardware that can install via Anaconda and you don't
> > support installing via Anaconda, you're not Fedora.
>
> Just for the sake of argument, our Ama
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 10:08:54PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> What is the justification for the need for the seperation in the firstplace?
You'd be fine with Fedora m68k? We have the separation because it's not
just about scratching your own itch. Each additional supported
architec
On 04/23/2012 09:07 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Fedora's about providing a consistent experience wherever possible; this
means using consistent interactive installation tools
It's not enough to always be using the same tools but those tools need
to be consitent in usage as well so for your nobl
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" (johan...@gmail.com) said:
> On 04/23/2012 08:14 PM, Jared K. Smith wrote:
> >>> Fesco is saying that if you have hardware that can install via Anaconda,
> >>> you must support installing via Anaconda. It's legitimate for you to
> >>> also have other install mechanisms,
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 08:57:47PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 04/23/2012 08:14 PM, Jared K. Smith wrote:
> >>> Fesco is saying that if you have hardware that can install via Anaconda,
> >>> you must support installing via Anaconda. It's legitimate for you to
> >>> also have other
On 04/23/2012 08:14 PM, Jared K. Smith wrote:
> Fesco is saying that if you have hardware that can install via Anaconda,
> you must support installing via Anaconda. It's legitimate for you to
> also have other install mechanisms, and hardware that's incapable of
> supporting Anaconda installs
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 08:29:59PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 04/23/2012 07:45 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> >We shouldn't be promoting anything to primary arch that you can't install.
>
> Valid point but it still does not explain why FESCo chose to limit
> that exclusively to Anaco
On 04/23/2012 07:45 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
We shouldn't be promoting anything to primary arch that you can't install.
Valid point but it still does not explain why FESCo chose to limit that
exclusively to Anaconda and the "Installer team" and their installation
methods or lack there of.
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:13 PM, Jared K. Smith
wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>> Because if you have hardware that can install via Anaconda and you don't
>> support installing via Anaconda, you're not Fedora.
>
> Just for the sake of argument, our Amazon EC2 ima
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Fesco is saying that if you have hardware that can install via Anaconda,
> you must support installing via Anaconda. It's legitimate for you to
> also have other install mechanisms, and hardware that's incapable of
> supporting Anaconda ins
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 3:42 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Because if you have hardware that can install via Anaconda and you don't
> support installing via Anaconda, you're not Fedora.
Just for the sake of argument, our Amazon EC2 images aren't using
Anaconda for installation, but they're still c
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 07:54:57PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 04/23/2012 07:42 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >Because if you have hardware that can install via Anaconda and you don't
> >support installing via Anaconda, you're not Fedora.
> So FESCo is in otherwords saying that other
On 04/23/2012 12:54 PM, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
So FESCo is in otherwords saying that other installers and even
installing methods ( think like the distribution would be flashed to a
device in the maybe not to distant future instead of being installed in
the traditional sense as we know it
2012/4/23 "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" :
> On 04/23/2012 07:42 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>
>> Because if you have hardware that can install via Anaconda and you don't
>> support installing via Anaconda, you're not Fedora.
>
> So FESCo is in otherwords saying that other installers and even installing
>
On 04/23/2012 07:42 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
Because if you have hardware that can install via Anaconda and you don't
support installing via Anaconda, you're not Fedora.
So FESCo is in otherwords saying that other installers and even
installing methods ( think like the distribution would be fl
"Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" (johan...@gmail.com) said:
> On 04/23/2012 07:00 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >After some tweaking, these are now accepted as
> >https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Secondary_Architecture_Promotion_Requirements
> >
>
> Fail to see the reasoning why Anaconda and the
On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 07:33:44PM +, "Jóhann B. Guðmundsson" wrote:
> On 04/23/2012 07:00 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> >After some tweaking, these are now accepted as
> >https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Secondary_Architecture_Promotion_Requirements
> >
>
> Fail to see the reasoning
On 04/23/2012 07:00 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
After some tweaking, these are now accepted as
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Secondary_Architecture_Promotion_Requirements
Fail to see the reasoning why Anaconda and the "Installer team" are
involved in these requirements care to el
After some tweaking, these are now accepted as
https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Secondary_Architecture_Promotion_Requirements
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Now at
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Secondary_Architecture_Promotion_Requirements_%28Draft%29
FESCo would welcome more discussion of this draft, and plans to vote
on it next week.
Mirek
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject
On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 10:11:35PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> I'm planning on moving this to the Wiki (as a draft) at the end of the
> week, so if people have any further feedback please let me know.
Now at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Secondary_Architecture_Promotion_Requirements_%28Draft
I'm planning on moving this to the Wiki (as a draft) at the end of the
week, so if people have any further feedback please let me know.
--
Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
drago01 wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 1:56 AM, Kevin Kofler
> wrote:
>> I'm surprised emulating ARM in QEMU is so much faster than qemu-system-
>> x86_64
>> (which was how I measured the 50 times).
>
> Given that x86_64 is way more complex then ARM it is not *that*
> surprising.
I think the
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 01:11:27PM -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> I have spoken with the OpenSUSE guys they dont use qemu-system-arm but
> rather qemu-arm and lay out things and build using a hybrid
> environment thats also how they build ppc s390 and other arches. the
> only build hardware they h
On 03/20/2012 06:51 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 03/20/2012 03:33 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> "doing all of these things" doesn't happen magically just because the
>> board/fesco grants that ARM is suddenly a primary arch. If we made arm a
>> primary arch tomorrow, you'd still have to solve all
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> Maybe a distribution of PandaBoards/R-Pi for every FAS account holder could
> help, any sponsor? :D
OLPC is starting mass production of XO-1.75 units, based on an ARMv7
Marvell Armada 610. School kids in Uruguay and Nicaragua will start
th
On Mar 22, 2012, at 5:33 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>
> That depends, in the developed western world probably not, in the
> developing world most users are just going straight to smartphones and
> tablets and not bothering with desktops/laptops at all. The reasons
> for this is low power and pric
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:27 AM, Tomas Mraz wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 12:57 +0200, Nikos Roussos wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Kevin Kofler
>> wrote:
>> > What do people buy these days? Phones, tablets, and TVs. Not
>> desktop
>> > computers.
>>
>>
>>
On Thu, 2012-03-22 at 12:57 +0200, Nikos Roussos wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Kevin Kofler
> wrote:
> > What do people buy these days? Phones, tablets, and TVs. Not
> desktop
> > computers.
>
>
> Citation needed. Desktop/notebook com
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 7:54 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > What do people buy these days? Phones, tablets, and TVs. Not desktop
> > computers.
>
> Citation needed. Desktop/notebook computers aren't going to go away any
> time
> soon.
http://www.economist.com/node/21531109
with some interesting cha
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 7:59 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 03/21/2012 11:18 AM, drago01 wrote:
>>
>> But there seems to be a huge oppositions against that in Fedora.
>> How does Ubuntu build there ARM builds? Native or using cross compilers?
>
>
> Native.
OK kind of unexpected though.
--
devel
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 8:32 AM, drago01 wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 1:56 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> drago01 wrote:
>>> Those numbers look way better then Kevin's "50x slower without any
>>> citation" ... thanks for getting this numbers.
>>
>> I'm surprised emulating ARM in QEMU is so much f
On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 1:56 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> drago01 wrote:
>> Those numbers look way better then Kevin's "50x slower without any
>> citation" ... thanks for getting this numbers.
>
> I'm surprised emulating ARM in QEMU is so much faster than qemu-system-
> x86_64
> (which was how I meas
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 22 Mar 2012 02:02:59 +0100
Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
> > Arm emulation would go a long way toward validating produced install
> > images too. Those of us that validate x86 images depend heavily on
> > KVM and the like.
>
>
Jesse Keating wrote:
> Arm emulation would go a long way toward validating produced install
> images too. Those of us that validate x86 images depend heavily on KVM
> and the like.
But full system emulation is slower by a LARGE factor, not merely the 2 to 4
Jaroslav quoted for OBS, which (accord
drago01 wrote:
> Those numbers look way better then Kevin's "50x slower without any
> citation" ... thanks for getting this numbers.
I'm surprised emulating ARM in QEMU is so much faster than qemu-system-
x86_64 (which was how I measured the 50 times). Are they really using QEMU
for everything or
Actually debian hfp is built on efika smart tops. They have a 8gb ssd attached
using pata and 512mb ram.
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 03/21/2012 02:13 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> As do Debian I believe. I think, but aren't 100
On 03/21/2012 02:13 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
As do Debian I believe. I think, but aren't 100% sure, that all major
distributions except suse build as native.
At the last Linaro Connect the Debian guys said they're building
natively on i.MX53 boards (Which are cool because they have real SATA)
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 6:59 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 03/21/2012 11:18 AM, drago01 wrote:
>>
>> But there seems to be a huge oppositions against that in Fedora.
>> How does Ubuntu build there ARM builds? Native or using cross compilers?
>
>
> Native.
As do Debian I believe. I think, but ar
On 03/21/2012 11:18 AM, drago01 wrote:
But there seems to be a huge oppositions against that in Fedora.
How does Ubuntu build there ARM builds? Native or using cross compilers?
Native.
--
Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / b...@redhat.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 06:07:57 -0400 (EDT)
> Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
>
>> - Original Message -
>>
>> > Maybe it's worth to ask them (or look at for example Mer builds)
>> > what's
>>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:12:58 -0400
Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Peter Jones
> wrote:
> > On 03/21/2012 09:21 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> >
> >> Except when people are forced to look at it, their solution was
> >> often ExcludeArc
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 06:07:57 -0400 (EDT)
Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> - Original Message -
>
> > Maybe it's worth to ask them (or look at for example Mer builds)
> > what's
> > the difference in build times.
>
> A few statistics from build.meeg
On 03/21/2012 06:26 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
Thanks Adam, this is the first real use case where speed of builds is
important for something other than keeping the developer happy.
Other points raised on the list are:
1. The nature of chainbuilds would feel slowed build times particularly.
Th
On 3/21/12 10:36 AM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
The main place I see ARM emulation being useful is in allowing any
packager with an x86 host to boot a simulated ARM host to resolve build
failures in their package. That's not ideal- ideal is every package
owner has an ARM system they can use, but it'
On 3/21/12 6:52 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
On 03/21/2012 09:21 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
Except when people are forced to look at it, their solution was often
ExcludeArch for PPC. As I said in the other thread, you cannot force
people to care about an architecture they don't know or want to learn.
Th
On 03/21/2012 05:25 AM, Chris Tyler wrote:
Fully-emulated actually fits into the "Native Builds" guideline, but it
hasn't been economical to use this approach because there's no hardware
support for ARM emulation on x86 (the way that there is hardware
acceleration for x86 virtualization on x86) a
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:32:04AM -0400, Zach Brown wrote:
> On 03/21/2012 10:58 AM, Dave Jones wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 01:27:04PM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > > All sorts of things can speed it up, most of the Fedora builders are
> > > currently loopback ext4 over NFS ove
On 03/21/2012 10:58 AM, Dave Jones wrote:
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 01:27:04PM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> All sorts of things can speed it up, most of the Fedora builders are
> currently loopback ext4 over NFS over 100Mb ethernet over USB. Not
> optimal.
Just switching them to ext2 wo
> > So probably using Qemu could speed it up quite a lot. Also OBS
> > offers
> > quite a lot of flexibility to decouple arch builds, disable
> > selected
> > archs etc. But I'm not sure about the processes for chain builds,
> > updates, how they make the builds consistent (if one arch fails)...
>
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 2:58 PM, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 01:27:04PM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > All sorts of things can speed it up, most of the Fedora builders are
> > currently loopback ext4 over NFS over 100Mb ethernet over USB. Not
> > optimal.
>
> Just switching th
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 01:27:04PM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> All sorts of things can speed it up, most of the Fedora builders are
> currently loopback ext4 over NFS over 100Mb ethernet over USB. Not
> optimal.
Just switching them to ext2 would save a ton of IO. The buildroots
get regenerat
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 03/21/2012 09:21 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
>> Except when people are forced to look at it, their solution was often
>> ExcludeArch for PPC. As I said in the other thread, you cannot force
>> people to care about an architecture they don't kno
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 1:52 PM, Peter Jones wrote:
> On 03/21/2012 09:21 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
>> Except when people are forced to look at it, their solution was often
>> ExcludeArch for PPC. As I said in the other thread, you cannot force
>> people to care about an architecture they don't kno
On 03/21/2012 09:21 AM, Josh Boyer wrote:
Except when people are forced to look at it, their solution was often
ExcludeArch for PPC. As I said in the other thread, you cannot force
people to care about an architecture they don't know or want to learn.
That suggests we need a FTBFS-like nightl
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 01:26:58PM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > The expectation would be that the architecture maintainers have fixed
> > everything before moving to being a primary architecture, so this should
> > only be an issue if
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 7:13 AM, David Tardon wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:52:58PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
>> On 03/20/2012 12:44 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
>> >Now the ultra ridiculous: How about secondary architecture requirements
>> >demoted as-is to tertiary. And create substantiall
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:07 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> - Original Message -
>
>> Maybe it's worth to ask them (or look at for example Mer builds)
>> what's
>> the difference in build times.
>
> A few statistics from build.meego.com - using the OBS and building in
> qemu. These are real
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:41:33AM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Matthew Garrett
>> wrote:
>> > I think you're looking at this in slightly the wrong way. Being a
>> > primary architecture isn't meant t
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:46 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 12:08 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>
>> 2) Updates. Submitting updates requires the entire build to be complete
>> which means you have to wait for the slowest thing to finish. Having to
>> wait for 12 hours effectively
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 7:39 AM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:41:33AM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Matthew Garrett
>> wrote:
>> > I think you're looking at this in slightly the wrong way. Being a
>> > primary architecture isn't meant to
On Wed, 2012-03-21 at 05:04 -0400, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> - Original Message -
> > just a side note - I was told by an OpenSUSE on ARM person that they
> > use
> > x86 boxes with the user-space qemu virtual machine. It works quite
> > fast,
> > but still needs some hacking eg. in test-sui
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Jaroslav Reznik wrote:
> - Original Message -
>
>> Maybe it's worth to ask them (or look at for example Mer builds)
>> what's
>> the difference in build times.
>
> A few statistics from build.meego.com - using the OBS and building in
> qemu. These are real
On Wed, Mar 21, 2012 at 10:41:33AM +0100, Miloslav Trmač wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > I think you're looking at this in slightly the wrong way. Being a
> > primary architecture isn't meant to be a benefit to the port - it's
> > meant to be a benefit to Fedo
- Original Message -
> Maybe it's worth to ask them (or look at for example Mer builds)
> what's
> the difference in build times.
A few statistics from build.meego.com - using the OBS and building in
qemu. These are really just approximate numbers, built in different
times with probably a
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:58 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> I think you're looking at this in slightly the wrong way. Being a
> primary architecture isn't meant to be a benefit to the port - it's
> meant to be a benefit to Fedora. Adding arm to the PA list means you'll
> have to take on a huge numb
- Original Message -
> just a side note - I was told by an OpenSUSE on ARM person that they
> use
> x86 boxes with the user-space qemu virtual machine. It works quite
> fast,
> but still needs some hacking eg. in test-suites
Yep, OpenSUSE uses qemu - it's sometimes not as stable as it shou
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 13:44 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote:
> Now the ultra ridiculous: How about secondary architecture
> requirements demoted as-is to tertiary. And create substantially more
> aggressive requirements for secondary architecture (in which ARM would
> be placed), yet are not identical re
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 12:52:58PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 03/20/2012 12:44 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
> >Now the ultra ridiculous: How about secondary architecture requirements
> >demoted as-is to tertiary. And create substantially more aggressive
> >requirements for secondary architectu
On 3/20/12 5:14 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
But sure, in theory, we can do just about anything for a secondary arch
that we do for a primary arch, I don't think there's any technical
barrier to us doing update karma for ARM and test days for ARM and a
release validation process for ARM and all the
On Tuesday, March 20, 2012, 7:21:25 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/20/2012 05:46 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 05:37:10PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 03/20/2012 09:21 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
> T
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 13:03 -0700, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > Subject
> > to applicability, the same QE mechanisms being employed.
>
> I don't see SA/PA mattering as much here. It's up to QE what they want
> to take on and what they point automated tooling at.
In theory...yeah. In boring every d
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 13:50 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Brendan Conoboy said:
> > Indeed, targeting mobile devices on day 1 is beyond the scope of the
> > proposal. The first step is the eat-our-own-dogfood target, which is
> > self-hosting ARM servers. Mobile devices are a n
On 03/20/2012 04:43 PM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
ARMv8 will be 64-bit and faster:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARM_architecture#ARMv8_and_64-bit
http://www.arm.com/files/downloads/ARMv8_Architecture.pdf
It should be ready for servers and desktops, maybe, in three-four years.
But not today.
AR
On Tue, 2012-03-20 at 12:08 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> 2) Updates. Submitting updates requires the entire build to be complete
> which means you have to wait for the slowest thing to finish. Having to
> wait for 12 hours effectively means you can't even test your update until
> the next day, and
Chris Adams wrote:
> Okay, but how many ARM servers are in widespread use? For the resources
> required as a primary arch, there should be a large expected user base.
> The first sentence of the detailed description on the feature page is
> "ARM processors are the most popular CPUs in the world."
On 03/20/2012 07:05 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 03/20/2012 10:44 AM, drago01 wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
Please, please, no. Cross compilation for Fedora cannot and will not
ever
get a secondary arch to primary. We're talking man-decades of
engineering
time
On 03/20/2012 05:46 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 05:37:10PM +0100, drago01 wrote:
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 03/20/2012 09:21 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
That said, I considera cross-building environment for secondary arch to
be inevitab
On 03/20/2012 03:33 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
You haven't answered his question: why would ARM-as-primary come before
Fedora-on-tablets and Fedora-on-cellphones? Those can be perfectly supported
using the secondary architecture infrastructure (or if not, we need to
improve that infrastructure).
T
On 03/20/2012 03:33 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
So in principle, do you object to the same koji hub being used for ARM
if ARM is still SA?
I'm not really sure how to process that question. As a current secondary
arch, the primary hub is still the trigger point for the vast majority
of the builds t
Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 03/20/2012 12:03 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
>> Okay, but why is ARM-as-primary-arch an early step, and not near the
>> end? Increasing the developer and engineering burden across the whole
>> project should not be done for a small target audience.
>
> Really there is no b
On 3/20/12 2:33 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 03/20/2012 01:03 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
As an example, the same koji server handling x86 builds handling ARM
builds.
Only the koji hub would be the same, the arm builders would be different
machines. This isn't all that different from having the
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 02:33:57PM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> The sense I'm getting from your reply is that the PA/SA designation
> is almost decorative, that a secondary can do anything a primary
> can, except inhibit the progress of builds. So, if the Fedora ARM
> team fixes all broken bui
On 03/20/2012 01:03 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
As an example, the same koji server handling x86 builds handling ARM
builds.
Only the koji hub would be the same, the arm builders would be different
machines. This isn't all that different from having the primary hub
trigger the arm hub to start a b
On 03/20/2012 01:48 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
I would suggest -- in order to move the present discussion on -- that
you try using various methods to speed up an ARM build of (eg) glibc.
distcc, some sort of demo cross-compilation, etc. What works, what
doesn't work, what needs more work?
D
On 03/20/2012 01:32 PM, Przemek Klosowski wrote:
Is cross-compile an option? if it is, how long does it take to
cross-compile in an x86_64 environment?
Discussed elsewhere in this thread. Not an option.
--
Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / b...@redhat.com
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fed
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 11:05:20AM -0700, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 03/20/2012 10:44 AM, drago01 wrote:
> >On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> >>Please, please, no. Cross compilation for Fedora cannot and will not ever
> >>get a secondary arch to primary. We're talking ma
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 06:54:07PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> > Kevin, you don't know what you are talking about. Every cell phone has
> > an ARM cpu in it. Smart phone or otherwise. Almost every HDTV has an ARM
> > cpu in it. Almost every tablet has an ARM cpu in it.
On 03/20/2012 12:15 PM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
Looking at last gcc build times (not unusual, though I really remember
arm taking much longer than that, e.g. 4.7.0-0.11.fc17 took almost 17 hours
on both arm architectures), from
http://*koji.fedoraproject.org/packages/gcc/4.7.0/0.20.fc17/data/logs/*
On 03/20/2012 01:14 PM, Andy Grover wrote:
Can Koji use distcc for ARM arches? Would that speedup be enough to make
ARM build competitive with others?
I believe this is a non-starter for rel-eng. The ARM team are not
recommending this path.
--
Brendan Conoboy / Red Hat, Inc. / b...@redhat.c
On 03/20/2012 09:15 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Looking at last gcc build times (not unusual, though I really remember
> arm taking much longer than that, e.g. 4.7.0-0.11.fc17 took almost 17 hours
> on both arm architectures), from
> http://*koji.fedoraproject.org/packages/gcc/4.7.0/0.20.fc17/data/l
On Mar 20, 2012, at 1:52 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
>>
>
> Yes, the all-or-nothing mindset between secondary and primary is almost
> certainly the root of the problem.
Well that and I think there's some resistance at the notion that for the
massive consumer market, the desktop is a dead pla
On 3/20/12 12:32 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
On 03/20/2012 12:19 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
What does "better than secondary arch" mean to you? I'm really
struggling here.
As an example, the same koji server handling x86 builds handling ARM
builds.
Only the koji hub would be the same, the arm b
On Mar 20, 2012, at 1:14 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>
>
> It doesn't make sense to discuss requirements for becoming a primary
> architecture without discussing whether it should be considered in the first
> place.
Seems requirements are needed to have the discussion, to have metrics based
rat
- Original Message -
> From: "Brendan Conoboy"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2012 9:14:11 PM
> Subject: Re: RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements
>
> On 03/20/2012 12:05 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > So if y
On 03/20/2012 03:32 PM, Brendan Conoboy wrote:
> On 03/20/2012 12:19 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
>> What does "better than secondary arch" mean to you? I'm really
>> struggling here.
>
> As an example, the same koji server handling x86 builds handling ARM
> builds. The same facilities providing power
On 03/20/2012 12:44 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:
But this *requirements* thread is about acclimation, planning and anticipating
the challenges of the climb. Serious climbs may involve days or months of this.
So if the analogy holds, a lot of advance work has to be done before ARM
actually is promot
On Mar 20, 2012, at 1:03 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> I hate analogies, but no, the first step is working out in a gym to make sure
> you're in fit enough shape to go up the mountain.
As a distractor from long, heated threads, and mountain person - gym bunnies
get to altitude and implode routinel
1 - 100 of 184 matches
Mail list logo
