-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 16 May 2014 18:58:14 -0400
Al Dunsmuir <al.dunsmuir(a)sympatico.ca> wrote:
On Friday, May 16, 2014, 4:41:51 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Al Dunsmuir
> <al.dunsmuir(a)sympatico.ca> wrote:
>> On Friday, May 16, 2014, 2:50:15 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Al Dunsmuir
>>> <al.dunsmuir(a)sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>>> On Friday, May 16, 2014, 12:22:26 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>> I know someone who has sparc, alpha hardware. I'm not sure if
>> they have an ia64 box taking up space in a closet somewhere.
> Great. I know someone that has the hardware too. We still removed
> support for both in the kernel spec because it was entirely
> moribund.
That is reasonable.
> Hardware availability is often secondary to sustained effort from
> people that have that hardware. History shows that people seem less
> interested in keeping it running when they have to do the work or go
> it alone in doing the work.
Human nature. We'll hope there is a different outcome.
>>>> Making it so that ppc32 does not get built by default is one
>>>> thing,
>>
>>> Actually, it's a very very big thing. Those wishing to keep it
>>> alive now need to come up with their own build hardware and build
>>> enviroment setup. This is by far the largest hurdle, and if it
>>> isn't done quickly the ppc32 secondary-secondary (thirdary?) arch
>>> will quickly fall behind and into disrepair.
>> Some folks have volunteered to host the builds, and provide
>> build hardware. We'll see how that works out. If we do have to
>> build outside the Fedora systems, there are going to be security
>> considerations.
> Outside build systems are probably going to be a requirement here.
> That is how ARM started, so it's not unreasonable. I doubt you're
> going to get Fedora Infrastructure to host any ppc32 hardware in the
> colo due to both space and configuration issues (they only take rack
> machines).
We need to see what can be done to make sure we can stay "Fedora"
under those circumstances. Being forced to be a Fedora-like remix
would be a shame if that is the only issue.
>>>> but removing the ability to build ppc32 at all seems
>>>> excessive, and certainly premature given the current situation.
>>
>>> Which is why I sent it as a patch instead of simply committed it.
>>> Discussion is requested. At a minimum though, I really would
>>> like to drop the -smp flavor because it was of very limited use
>>> even when ppc was a primary arch and it adds the most
>>> complication to the spec.
>>
>> Thanks for clarifying that.
>>
>> The problem with dropping smp is that I and other have smp
>> hardware that we would like to use. That is also likely the
>> hardware that
> Yes, I've seen that. I'm willing to hold off on the removal for a
> bit to see how quickly your effort gets off the ground. I won't
> wait forever though.
Entirely reasonable.
> To be clear, whatever is built is entirely supported by the team
> doing the ppc32 work. Any bugs filed in Fedora bugzilla will get
> assigned to the contact person.
That's pretty well the way it is with ARM even now, whether they like
it or not.
There is likely to be a rare occasion when ppc32 discovers an issue
that also affects other builds. Reproducing on on X86, X86_64, or
ppc64 should allow the problem to be addressed by the regular
developers.
Worst case, providing a remote login seems to be the standard
approach.
>> would best be used for builds, should "build native" and lack
>> of a ppc32 cross compiler & binutils mean we can's use a ppc64
>> build host.
> Cross-compiling is not allowed in Fedora anyway. Which is really
> unfortunate because it is actually a very useful thing to do in
> situations just like this.
That is the rule for release builds, but like ARM (and ARM64)
sometimes you have to use cross-compilation during bring up.
cross compilation is the only way to bring up a new architecture
Unlike ARM, ppc64 does support user processes running in ppc32
mode
(via multi-arch). Do the current (up to today) ppc32 builds run on
ppc32 hardware, or do they run on ppc64 machines via multi-arch?
If there is ppc32-only hardware, why can't we continue to use it?
The builds today happen in a 32 bit chroot on 64 bit hardware. the
chroot is made from scratch every build just as all the other arches
are.
Dennis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)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=oafJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----