On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 3:14 AM, John Reiser <jreiser@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 03/23/2012 02:36 PM, Paul Whalen wrote [has been snipped]: > >> We have recently opened up discussions with developers and the community, >> engaging in a variety of topics to understand the requirements of moving >> the ARM secondary arch to primary ( details -https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/FedoraARM) >> - with no disruption to the existing Fedora ecosphere. > > The Fedora ecosphere already has spent over one thousand hours of developer time > discussing such issues, as witnessed by at least two recent threads in > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: > ARM as primary architecture > RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements > Such time likely has not been totally productive [regardless of outcome], > and certainly cannot be recouped. This has been a major disruption already. > >> Introducing existing QE tests will prove problematic as currently >> there is no anaconda support for ARM, ... > > The topic of hardware+software architecture (ABI) should not be forgotten. > Some groups have decided that "armhf" is the only worthwhile variant. > I feel that ignoring "arm eabi[45]" (and specifically, v5te hardware) > is a short-sighted choice. We haven't ignored v5te at all, we are supporting it and if you visit the ARM SIG page you'll see that there are downloads for both armv5tel and armv7hl rootfs. It's what's being used for the Raspberry Pi and is what is currently shipping on the XO 1.75. Most projects have decided to drop armv4 for a number of reasons, this even includes debian, including the fact that v5 devices are cheap and the v4 devices are very limited for a modern fully fledged Linux distro. So we're not being short sighted what so ever to use your own phrase. Peter -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
