On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 2:04 AM, Brendan Conoboy <blc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On 07/10/2013 09:13 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>>
>>> Fedora is an operating system that supports a range of desktop
>>> environments, defaulting to the GNOME desktop environment. An OS that
>>> supports headless servers but not desktop environments might be based on
>>> Fedora, but it wouldn't be Fedora. As such, it wouldn't be suited to
>>> being a Fedora PA.
>>
>>
>> It is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish whether to read these
>> messages as high standards or hyperbole. Maybe your Fedora means desktop
>> OS, but my Fedora has more facets than that. Fedora Primary is not some
>> Platonic Form embodied by x86; that would be better described as Fedora
>> Fantasy.
>
> I will note that it is not x86 alone. If one is simply going by "as
> close to the current Fedora experience the current Primary offers",
> then the PowerPC secondary arch team is actually ahead of ARM. I'm
> not saying they are a better candidate, but I am pointing out that the
> criteria Matthew is alluding to is being met by non-x86 architectures.
Ahead in what metrics? In terms of packages built ARM is ahead, in
terms of kernel I don't believe it's easy to compare as ARM has a much
wider range of HW available from multiple vendors. In terms of
features like HW virt that's possibly true (but there's other features
that I'm not sure are even possible with PPC that ARM does) and in
terms of maturity of support it's most definitely true that PPC is
ahead.
Comparing f-19 packages (and I am very aware it's but one metric):
ARM statistics: {'older': 18, 'local_only': 4, 'remote_only': 233,
'same': 13355, 'newer': 0, 'total_missing_builds': 18}
PPC statistics: {'older': 49, 'local_only': 8, 'remote_only': 293,
'same': 13259, 'newer': 5, 'total_missing_builds': 49}
s390 statistics: {'older': 15, 'local_only': 3, 'remote_only': 741,
'same': 12850, 'newer': 0, 'total_missing_builds': 15}
>> The all or nothing element in the above simply serves to discourage further
>> contribution and is harming Fedora's growth. The relentless "I don't want
>
> I don't believe that is true. ARM is useful, I want it to be a
> Primary arch, but I fail to see how your middle ground below of having
> it be primary in the build system is going to somehow grow Fedora. I
> believe there are concerns that it will place additional burden on
> package maintainers (like ppc did before there was a real arch team
> for it), and that those concerns are valid.
>
>> There were concerns about reliability- we moved to enterprise hardware in
>> PHX.
>>
>> There were concerns about build times, particularly that of the kernel: We
>> bought the fastest hardware available, moved to a unified kernel
>> architecture and sped up builds many-fold.
>
> And yet did not include any of that information in your proposal. I
> believe build times have improved. I also believe that you should
> show it in the proposal so that it is clear you are addressing prior
> concerns. I'm appreciate the effort spent to speed up the kernel
> build times, but the concern is global. Show the work done in the
> proposal with some simple numbers.
I don't believe it should be included in the proposal, in supporting
docs yes but the proposal is an overview not a justification doc.
> Again, I would like to see ARM as Primary and I believe the ARM team
> has done a rather good job. Promoting anything to Primary has never
> been done before, so bear with us as we work through it.
Which is exactly why we bought it up a year ago have been actively
working through all the issues and why a year ago we asked for
promotion guidelines as opposed to actually proposing it. We're well
aware of that.
Peter
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
