On 9 July 2013 10:57, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Miloslav Trmač <mitr(a)volny.cz> wrote:
> > nnnOn Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Jaroslav Reznik <jreznik(a)redhat.com>
> > wrote:
> >> = Proposed System Wide Change: ARM as primary Architecture =
> >>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ARM_as_Primary
> >
> > How many F19 packages currently fail to build (or are excluded but
> > shouldn't be) on ARM? How do we stand against the other items of
> >
> >
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Secondary_Architecture_Promotion_Requirements
>
> At F-19 gold we were missing around 233 source packages out of around
> 13,500 total. These are broken down into a couple of groups:
> - Non ARM packages (x86/PPC/s390)
> - Languages not currerntly supported on ARM - eg D, a fpc and a few others
> - Packages that have issues with their CFLAGS (and actually should be
> fine if they used distro flags like they should)
> - Random other problems.
>
> I'm planning on going through these again and document the remaining
> packages.
>
How do we treat "Desktop" items where the package compiles fine but does not
run well without external drivers (the GNOME on ARM conversation earlier )
Or am I misreading that conversation.
The same way as we do now. In some cases there are drivers but they're
still in development and not stable (tegra/lima/freedreno), or there's
third party binary drivers (like mainline with the nVidia binary
drivers). The situation is improving rapidly for the 2D/3D accelerated
situation and in the mean time there are numerous other desktops that
run perfectly well. In time I'm sure we'll get to 100% parity with the
mainline platform but I don't believe anyone believes we're there now
but I don't see that as a blocker either.
Peter