Hi, Chris, On Fri, Jan 10, 2020 at 2:37 PM Chris Adams <linux@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Once upon a time, Aleksandra Fedorova <alpha@xxxxxxxxxxxx> said: > > The rejected change > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/x86-64_micro-architecture_update > > is explicitly referenced from the current one. So yes, it is the > > architecture update we are looking for. > > > > And I would suggest to avoid calling things weird and crazy just > > because you are not interested in them. > > The premise of the new change request is to ignore all the issues that > led to the original change request being rejected, and just assume that > the original will be accepted in the near future. No. Afaik, the main reason the change was rejected is that we are not ready yet (or don't see yet the reason) for the update of the architecture. And the benefit of such an update is unclear. Thus we design this change to be explicitly standalone with no impact on the current Fedora release. We want to have a separate test environment where we can experiment with the architecture updates (compiler flag changes and new features). This test environment is needed to preview and test the changes ahead of time. So that in next years, when (and I do believe that there will be such moment, while it might be that the final configuration flags will be different from those proposed right now) we decide to update the baseline, we have much better understanding on what changes are needed and which benefits we can get from it, and we don't have to squeeze them into one single mass rebuild in one particular moment in the release cycle. > AVX2 is not a reasonable requirement as a replacement for the current > Fedora x86_64, as there are CPUs still being made today that don't > support that. If you want to split x86_64 (along the lines of i386 vs. > i686), then building a shadow copy of the entire distribution is not a > good way forward - you need to do all the actual work required to make a > second x86_64 sub-architecture in the main x86_64 distribution. Come up > with a name, make the changes to the required packages, etc. > > Otherwise, what is the point of the shadow architecture? What is the > end goal? Build it in perpetuity and just try to get people to run your > packages instead of the main distribution? There is no intent to provide those packages to the regular user or make a separate Fedora Edition out of them. There will be no releases of repositories or media with such packages. It is only an experimental test environment linked to the Fedora Rawhide state. The end goal of this is not to add new architecture but to have a possibility to move actual Fedora configuration forward, without breaking it. Which means preparing and testing changes as close as possible to Fedora mainline, but without disrupting it. > > -- > Chris Adams <linux@xxxxxxxxxxx> > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Aleksandra Fedorova bookwar _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
