On Tue, Jul 09, 2013 at 02:54:53PM -0400, Jonathan Masters wrote:
Matthew Garrett wrote:
> This doesn't make it seem like the ARM port currently has sufficient
> developer expertise involved, and I'd really like to hear what the plans
> are for (a) fixing the existing problems, and (b) ensuring that we don't
> end up in a situation where other architectures are held up because
> there's nobody who can fix ARM-specific bugs.
We'll be looking into LLVM in due course. There are a few of us
capable of fixing the issue (that you were noted as being extremely
concerned about on IRC at the time - we will be happy to send you
updates on this) but we balance this with other priorities (as well as
a desire not to grow a dependency on LLVM more broadly - Fedora relies
heavily upon the expertise of RH's tools team, which focuses on GCC
almost exclusively precisely to avoid fragmenting the resources that
do exist to develop awesome new tooling). Right now, many desktops
work just fine, and there is no reason ARM cannot be a a Primary
Architecture because of a temporary bug in llvmpipe (or otherwise we
can revive this thread for you next time it breaks on the other
architecture and see if it should be demoted accordingly?). If there
is a rule saying "PA needs GNOME" then this can easily be adjusted to
reflect the fact that many are running Fedora on ARM today happily
with a variety of other desktop environments.
There's a few of you capable of fixing the issue, but there were enough
other things to fix that you didn't have time? That doesn't answer my
question. What are the plans to ensure that there's enough ARM expertise
in Fedora to ensure that ARM-specific bugs in critical infrastructure
packages (like LLVM) don't end up as release blockers?
--
Matthew Garrett | mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org