On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 2014-03-07 at 19:49 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 02:43:10PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: >> >> > I won't speak for the rest of the WG as a whole, but in the few >> > conversations I've had with people ARM wasn't something most thought >> > was a target for Workstation. It might be feasible for interested >> > people to produce Workstation ARM images, but I would be surprised if >> > that were made a requirement at this point. >> >> There's ARM hardware that is, at least theoretically, capable of running >> Workstation and has the kind of form factor for which Workstation is >> probably the appropriate product. As long as the ARM team are willing to >> take responsibility for ensuring drivers and install media work, and as >> long as there's someone doing QA, it seems like something we should >> support in an official sense. > > I think it's reasonable to plan for its inclusion For The Future. From > what I hear from dgilmore I'm not sure making it an official arch for > F21 would be a great idea, but it seems sensible to keep it in mind for > future inclusion while we're implementing the initial design. It > certainly seems like workstation/desktop-class ARM hardware is a thing > that's happening: there already are ARM-based systems probably powerful > enough to run Workstation, the Utilite, the ARM Chromebooks. We don't > have all the bits in place to support them *yet*, but it certainly seems > like we will, and it seems reasonable to assume others will follow where > they lead. Sure, future is always up for discussion. We'll likely need to evaluate AArch64 machines when they show up too. Dennis led the discussion with F21 though, hence my hesitation. josh -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
