On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Dennis Gilmore <dennis@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 12:03:28 -0800 > 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. > > I am okay with planning it as a future things, Server plans to support > ARM, and Cloud has it listed as a future thing. I think we can make > things work in the f21 time frame on a subset of hardware. But I am > okay with it being nice to have, or slipping to f22. I raised my > concerns because today it looks like the only consideration is x86_64 > with no possibility of anything else. Ah, ok. We should probably put a limiter on the Tech Spec for F21, or conversely say it's a living document like we do with the PRD. josh -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
