El lun, 08-01-2018 a las 09:16 -0800, Adam Williamson escribió: > On Mon, 2018-01-08 at 14:40 +0100, Jan Kurik wrote: > > > > == Scope == > > * Proposal owners: > > The general AArch64 support is already in place and is widely and > > actively supported by the Fedora ARM SIG and numerous ARM vendors > > and > > third parties in Fedora. There will be further and wider support, > > hardware enablement, polish and general improvements. > > > > * Other developers: > > N/A: There's no work required for other developers, the aarch64 > > architecture is already widely supported as an Alternate > > Architecture. > > > > * Release engineering: > > Needs approval from release engineering as a primary architecture > > as > > well as pungi configuration changes to output artifacts to new > > location on the primary mirror. > > rel-eng ticket #7243: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/7243 > > > > * Policies and guidelines: > > Updates to the primary architectures and release blocking details > > will > > need to be updated to reflect that the AArch64 Server/Cloud/Docker > > components are now considered primary. > > > > * Trademark approval: > > N/A (not needed for this Change) > > A significant miss here is 'testing'. Making an arch primary means we > need to ensure we have the necessary resources to run all the > relevant > validation testing. > > I note pwhalen is a co-owner of the proposal so he's likely signed up > to ensure testing gets done, but still, it should be properly covered > in the Change document itself. > > As a further note, almost all the Server validation for x86_64 is > done > by openQA; doing it manually can be a considerable pain, as you have > to > set up a mini FreeIPA deployment. It would probably be best if we add > aarch64 workers to the Fedora openQA deployment to run these tests on > aarch64; we've already extended openQA (staging) to ppc64, so all the > bits should be in place for us to add another arch, pretty much. I'm > going to follow up on this with pwhalen. > > Another consideration would be whether we ought to also have aarch64 > support in Taskotron, if it's going to become a primary arch. I'm not > actually sure if Taskotron currently covers 32-bit ARM, though, even. currently taskotron is x86 only. I am not sure what it would take to extend it beyond x86, it would be a worthwhile investigation. It would be useful to have all arches in openQA regardless of primary or secondary status. I would like to see openQA working for aarch64 in Fedora's instance a hard requirement of this change. Dennis
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ test mailing list -- test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to test-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
