On 07/16/2017 02:42 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Sun, Jul 16, 2017 at 2:26 AM, fedora_arm > <fedora_arm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 07/15/2017 06:17 PM, Peter Robinson wrote: >>> Fedora hasn't supported anything less than ARMv7 (armhfp) since Fedora 18. >> Not what I was hoping. But lack of an armel build isn't a long term issue. >> Do any contemporary Fedora ARM derivatives exist which may still maintain >> armel build infrastructure? > None I'm aware of, there's been a number of attempts for ARMv6 to > support original RPi/Pi Zero but even they're mostly dead. Well this isn't exactly surprising for a server/workstation class distribution to drop active support & soak for what has become an obsolete/obsoleting embedded architecture. The sole reason in pursuing the possibility is Fedora distro SRPM content being a strong preference as a distro intake choice for this customer. The armel product is essentially in maintenance mode and worst case would be to create a one-off build solution. The practicality of that approach is what I'm trying to understand. > I've been involved in Fedora ARM for over 7 years, lead the build > effort since F-14 and we've never cross compiled except pre rpm phase > when boot strapping very core central bits of booting Linux for a new > arch IE armhfp or aarch64. This was around 2008 and a conversation I was trying to instigate with Marvell during my tour of duty at RH. Admittedly no more than a cave painting artifact at this point. > Well a SRPM is essentially noarch or agnostic so it doesn't matter > what arch you create it on it's consumable across all arches hence I > still don't understand what the question is. Sorry I wasn't clear. It wasn't a question but a general statement of requirements, to give some context of the effort. Back in the 2008 timeframe the concern was comprehensive cross build support for all SRPM content, which given the embedded platform under discussion isn't required. >>> The Fedora infrastructure runs 32 bit VMs as builders running on 64 >>> bit hardware. >> 64-bit ARM or x86_64 host hardware? If ARM is that leveraging kvm to accelerate >> the 32-bit VM? > aarch64 as accelerated VMs using kvm. Not all aarch64 hardware supports that. Does this relate only to VHE support? Or are other CPU attributes required to support a 32-bit accelerated guest beyond aarch32 support on a aarch64 host? Understood this is an ARM or kvm/ARM question but as long as I'm bending this collective ear.. Bottom line is setting aside the significant need to bootstrap a Fedora armel distro in the first place, would a practical build vehicle even exist in terms of a kvm accelerated ARMv5 guest on aarch64. Agreed, I don't like the sound of where this is headed either. But if there is a non-negotiable roadblock in the path, it is best identified in advance. And thanks, this information is quite useful. -john _______________________________________________ arm mailing list -- arm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to arm-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
