> On 9 July 2013 10:57, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Miloslav Trmač <mitr@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > nnnOn Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Jaroslav Reznik <jreznik@xxxxxxxxxx> >> > wrote: >> >> = Proposed System Wide Change: ARM as primary Architecture = >> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ARM_as_Primary >> > >> > How many F19 packages currently fail to build (or are excluded but >> > shouldn't be) on ARM? How do we stand against the other items of >> > >> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Secondary_Architecture_Promotion_Requirements >> >> At F-19 gold we were missing around 233 source packages out of around >> 13,500 total. These are broken down into a couple of groups: >> - Non ARM packages (x86/PPC/s390) >> - Languages not currerntly supported on ARM - eg D, a fpc and a few others >> - Packages that have issues with their CFLAGS (and actually should be >> fine if they used distro flags like they should) >> - Random other problems. >> >> I'm planning on going through these again and document the remaining >> packages. >> > > How do we treat "Desktop" items where the package compiles fine but does not > run well without external drivers (the GNOME on ARM conversation earlier ) > Or am I misreading that conversation. The same way as we do now. In some cases there are drivers but they're still in development and not stable (tegra/lima/freedreno), or there's third party binary drivers (like mainline with the nVidia binary drivers). The situation is improving rapidly for the 2D/3D accelerated situation and in the mean time there are numerous other desktops that run perfectly well. In time I'm sure we'll get to 100% parity with the mainline platform but I don't believe anyone believes we're there now but I don't see that as a blocker either. Peter -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
