On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 6:06 PM, Adam Williamson <adamwill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, 2017-06-27 at 08:30 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 1:44 PM, langdon <langdon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > OVERVIEW >> > ======== >> > >> > As the modularity work starts to enter Fedora with the Fedora 27 >> > release, a typical Change Proposal did not seem to do justice on >> > capturing the moving parts and dependencies for the work to successfully >> > land. As a result, this document attempts to capture, at a high level, >> > the goals and deliverables for F27. We are also providing links to the >> > details to most aspects. Some of the details are still in progress and >> > will change over the F26 lifecycle (e.g. which modules will be included >> > for F27 Server). >> > >> > THE GOAL >> > ======== >> > >> > The Modularity and Server Working Groups plan, with the help of many >> > other groups in Fedora, to deliver a fully modularized version of the >> > Fedora Server Edition. As an equal and complementary goal, the tooling >> > for module creation/development, deployment and automatic testing will >> > be as simple and automated as possible. >> > [*Change*](https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Modular_Server) >> >> Given that Server is widely used across a number of architectures, >> with participation from various groups using those architectures, we >> still need Server to work on all the architectures it does today. Is >> that your understanding as well? > > I'll note that the only 'release-blocking' Server deliverables are all > x86_64. The only other 'release-blocking' arch we have is armhfp, but > the 'release-blocking' deliverables for that arch are the minimal and > Xfce disk images, not any Server image (and implicitly, not any Server > product). You are correct on the existing blocker criteria. > I'd say it's quite obviously the case that the modular Server has to > work on 'all' arches that were release-blocking for the previous > Server, but that turns out in practice to be only x86_64. How important > it is that it work immediately on other arches doesn't seem to be a > question with an immediate and obvious answer, to me. After all, at > present it is theoretically the case that we would release Fedora if > Server was entirely broken on armhfp or any other arch but x86_64; and > indeed we have recently rejected a proposed blocker bug - > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1463297 - that is a fairly > significant bug in Server on armhfp (not quite a showstopper, but > close) on the grounds that there are no release-blocking Server armhfp > deliverables... I cannot argue with the criteria as you have set forth. However, I never said we should block the release. I said it should work on the architectures it does today. That is more than x86_64. We *know* we have significant interest from multiple parties around Server on other architectures. This comes from both the project sponsor and from parties representing those architectures. They are even participating members in the Server WG. So while you may not hold a Fedora release for it, I do not think it is out of line to come into a Modular Server release with the intention of it actually working across multiple CPU architectures. josh _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
