|| ||Aleksandar Kurtakov <akurtako-AT-redhat.com> |
|| ||Development discussions related to Fedora <devel-AT-lists.fedoraproject.org> |
|| ||Re: F20 System Wide Change: ARM as primary Architecture |
|| ||Wed, 10 Jul 2013 08:28:43 -0400 (EDT)|
|| ||Article, Thread
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Josh Boyer" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" <email@example.com>
> 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> Adam Williamson (email@example.com) said:
> >> > I've had an entry on my todo list _forever_ to complete the
> >> > 'deliverables SOP' I started several releases ago:
> >> >
> >> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_releng...
> >> >
> >> > (I don't really like the current layout, I was planning on revising it)
> >> >
> >> > The addition of a new arch with quite a pile of 'supported images'
> >> > would certainly raise the priority of having such a thing. (We're
> >> > already hitting a problem with our *current* primary arches in this
> >> > area, though, in that the status of the multi-live, multi-arch and
> >> > 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, by
> >> 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 for
> > 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 Fedora
> > 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 that
> 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... ~ 17h
* current primary - https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=429023 ~1h 30m
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.
Red Hat Eclipse Team
> devel mailing list
devel mailing list
to post comments)