----- Original Message ----- > From: "Josh Boyer" <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxx> > To: "Development discussions related to Fedora" <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Wednesday, July 10, 2013 2:45:53 PM > Subject: Re: F20 System Wide Change: ARM as primary Architecture > > On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Jaroslav Reznik <jreznik@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> Adam Williamson (awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx) said: > >> > I've had an entry on my todo list _forever_ to complete the > >> > 'deliverables SOP' I started several releases ago: > >> > > >> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_releng_SOP_deliverables > >> > > >> > (I don't really like the current layout, I was planning on revising it) > >> > > >> > The addition of a new arch with quite a pile of 'supported images' > >> > would certainly raise the priority of having such a thing. (We're > >> > already hitting a problem with our *current* primary arches in this > >> > area, though, in that the status of the multi-live, multi-arch and > >> > cloud/appliance images is rather unclear). > >> > >> Plus, in relation to this - the llvmpipe issue brings up that one of > >> the 'release blocking desktops' *does not work*. This would, by > >> definition, > >> block the release unless we intend to have different criteria for ARM as a > >> primary arch. > > > > I don't see a problem with different set of blocking desktops for ARM, even > > as primary architecture. But it's really about resources - do we have > > people > > willing to work for example on LXDE (I'd say more resources friendly for > > current ARMs) - not saying there are no people, but more to support it as > > blocking desktop, if QA would be able to validate three desktops on two > > different platforms... And as we try to avoid "default" world in Fedora > > now, > > let's have LXDE "default" in some cases. > > Is LXDE considered a release blocking desktop? I honestly don't know. > I also don't think it matters whether LXDE or FVMW2 or Gnome is the > default desktop on ARM. The criteria should probably be that it ships > with a desktop that is considered release blocking. If LXDE isn't > one, then perhaps it should be made so. The goal here shouldn't be > "we have a desktop". It should be "we have a desktop experience that > is the same on all primary architectures". To that end, whichever > desktop is picked should be release blocking and it should function > the same on all primary architectures. > > > For build times, Dennis has numbers prepared, we decided to let it out of > > the proposal and send it for discussion. > > There was significant concern on this during the first time this came > up for discussion. I think the proposal should at least include a > link to the overall build time improvements. Clearly there has been > improvement, so make the proposal show that. I still have serious concerns regarding build times: * arm - https://arm.koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=150248 ~ 17h * current primary - https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=429023 ~1h 30m This is still too huge gap - roughly 10 times slower. If ARM will become primary arch I hope this is an exception and not the general rule. Alexander Kurtakov Red Hat Eclipse Team > > josh > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
