----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dennis Gilmore" <dennis@xxxxxxxx> > To: devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 9:02:48 AM > Subject: Re: F20 System Wide Change: ARM as primary Architecture > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Thu, 11 Jul 2013 10:23:50 -0700 > Brendan Conoboy <blc@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On 07/11/2013 03:55 AM, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > 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. > > > > I'm not up-to-date on the current condition of Power: Are you > > specifically referring to GNOME & KDE? If so I'd posit that this is > > because GNOME & KDE make a lot more sense on Power than they do on > > ARM. Developer energy goes where it's needed & wanted. Prior to this > > discussion nobody was lamenting the state of gnome on their low power > > ARM system. We're still building them of course- all the GNOME and > > KDE packages are built, they're just not getting used AFAIK. > > I actually switched my chromebook over to KDE and used it on my > trimslice quite extensively. during the f19 cycle. > > > > 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. > > > > Are those concerns valid? By what measure? Can they be controverted > > by evidence? Thus far we have pro and con anecdotes. > > > > > 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 will look at throwing together a script to give us some comparisons > between the build times on the different arches. Phew, finally something meaningful :) . I was afraid that the major (at least for me) problem named "make it cost more time for packagers" will be plain ignored. Can we get a comparison for majority of packages and get some real point that will become too costy for packagers - aka build time of less than 20% of packages should be 5 or more times longer. I personally thing this is pretty low bar but some might argue that it's high so numbers put are just to serve as an example. Alexander Kurtakov Red Hat Eclipse team > > > These are good suggestions- thanks for that. > > > > > 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. > > > > Absolutely. Change is hard, but if all goes well this one will be > > popular in hindsight :-) > > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEARECAAYFAlHfnAgACgkQkSxm47BaWffSCACeN+s7FHECOv2u6I6uWAXEcvdX > 1W4AoK5y5BUyM49tLtSn+z0VTkBnMjIq > =txCb > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
