On Wednesday, March 19, 2014, 2:09:15 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Josh Boyer (jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) said: >>> > 2) A per-arch filter list, because the existing one that works on >>> > x86_64 leaves modules in kernel-core on ARM that lack their >>> > dependencies. Bad. >>> >>> OK, I sorted this out this week. I believe the only arch left to do is >>> s390x and that's only because I forgot about it. Oops. >> >> Is this even needed on s390 for reasons other than consistency? Similarly >> with power, is the idea to have a core kernel for running on an LPAR and >> then -drivers for the rest of it? > Needed? Probably not. At the moment it's not possible to build a > normal kernel on one arch and the split on another. If we're going to > go off and make changes to anaconda and yum and dnf to cope with this, > consistency on what is shipped is probably a good thing. > That being said, it is flexible in terms of the content of those > packages. So ppc64 could do what you suggest. s390x would arguably > just shove almost everything in -drivers. In reality, I expect most > arches to just install both packages anyway. If you update the ppc64 kernel package, please also do the same for the ppc 32-bit kernel. There are a few of us out there with vintage PPC hardware. This week, I picked up an IBM 7046-B50 (32-bit only, CHRP), to go with the PPC Macs (G5, G4, G3) that I've been gathering with the intent of recreating a minimal vintage PPC spin (likely based on LXDE). This would include support for other non-Mac 32-bit PPC systems. While most of the official effort is 64-bit (BE and now LE), the PPC arch still builds 32-bit userspace packages, and has stated that in their wiki that they have no intent to discontinue 32-bit kernels. Thanks! Al _______________________________________________ kernel mailing list kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel
