On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:28 PM, Aleksandar Kurtakov <akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > ----- 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. That build gap is due to java not being the fully accelerated one, I know there's work being done there but it's been a while since I heard the latest state, the last of which was "soon" Peter -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
