10:08 a.m.
Justin has raised an interesting question on his weblog concerning Fedora core
and the amd64-- should developers waste time on FC1 x86_64 or put their
efforts into FC2 which will be available "real soon now"?
I can see arguments for both situations but I wonder what other amd64 users
think.
1. With limited developer resources and FC2 test2 about two weeks away (it
will have a x86_64 snapshot with needed i386 packages), the better option is
to put the resources into getting FC2 "right". With the test1 snapshot as a
base and all of the package updates in development, the x86_64 versions
should be in pretty good shape. Furthermore, the Red Hat build process is
set up to handle x86_64 builds for development (and FC2 Test2) whereas x86_64
updated packages are few and far between. When the test2 snapshot rolls out,
x86_64 updates will be available as a matter of course (or at least that is
the plan).
2. At the current time, FC1 is more stable (especially with all of the
updates applied) than the current state of FC2 (as could be expected since
FC2 is still in development and testing). In addition, it is not at all
difficult to rebuild the ix86 packages for the x86_64 (I have done this for
the current set of updates). FC1 test1 + updates is a fairly stable platform
and should be pretty close to what would be available if FC1 x86_64 final was
released.
So, work on getting FC2 with varying stability (there will be problems) or put
time in to roll out a FC1 x86_64 final? At the present time, I lean toward
option 1. I do have a working FC1 test1 plus all updates so the release of
the FC2 x86_64 final will be of little value to me except to do testing for
the community.
I have built all of the ix86 updated packages (as applicable) and even include
mozilla 1.6 from development to provide a 64 bit mozilla. Together with some
others who are interested in a FC1 x86_64 system, I could make the rebuilt
packages available on a "it works for me but use at your own risk" basis.
Comments?
--
Gene
11:50 a.m.
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Gene C. wrote:
Justin has raised an interesting question on his weblog
concerning Fedora core and the amd64-- should developers waste
time on FC1 x86_64 or put their efforts into FC2 which will be
available "real soon now"?
I can see advantages and disadvantages to both decisions. I'll
comment below.
I can see arguments for both situations but I wonder what other
amd64 users think.
I would assume that most AMD64 users want something useable ASAP,
so that they can use their favourite OS with their new AMD64
systems. The fastest way to get that is to release Fedora Core 1
for AMD64.
1. With limited developer resources and FC2 test2 about two
weeks away (it will have a x86_64 snapshot with needed i386
packages), the better option is to put the resources into
getting FC2 "right". With the test1 snapshot as a base and all
of the package updates in development, the x86_64 versions
should be in pretty good shape. Furthermore, the Red Hat build
process is set up to handle x86_64 builds for development (and
FC2 Test2) whereas x86_64 updated packages are few and far
between. When the test2 snapshot rolls out, x86_64 updates will
be available as a matter of course (or at least that is the
plan).
All RPM packages are built on all 7 architectures, both in Fedora
Core 1, and Fedora Core 2, so from that angle, it doesn't make
any more work than we already have, to produce AMD64 packages.
There is some overhead involved with producing updates, but
_only_ if they are AMD64 specific updates. If they were updates
for x86 anyway, releasing for both x86 and AMD64 shouldn't really
pose additional effort.
For the most part, any additional effort required for AMD64,
would most likely have to be done for RHEL3, and Fedora Core 2
development also.
The only problem I see from the "work" angle, is that when Fedora
Core 1 goes end of life, it should go end of life on all
architectures simultaneously in my opinion, however if AMD64
release trails it, then either the AMD64 release isn't supported
for the same length of time from it's initial release, or else
additional effort would have to be spent supporting the AMD64
release for n months from release date. However if we supported
AMD64 for the same length of time as we planned to support x86,
then we might as well support both of them until the same EOL
date, as everything builds on both arches anyway.
Again, this is just some of my thoughts, bouncing in the air.
2. At the current time, FC1 is more stable (especially with all
of the updates applied) than the current state of FC2 (as could
be expected since FC2 is still in development and testing). In
addition, it is not at all difficult to rebuild the ix86
packages for the x86_64 (I have done this for the current set of
updates). FC1 test1 + updates is a fairly stable platform and
should be pretty close to what would be available if FC1 x86_64
final was released.
Agreed. And even after FC2 is finally released, it might be a
while before a 2.6.x based distribution could be considered as
stable as a final 2.4.x based distribution. In that case, I
would prefer myself to be running FC1 on an AMD64 box.
So, work on getting FC2 with varying stability (there will be
problems) or put time in to roll out a FC1 x86_64 final? At the
present time, I lean toward option 1. I do have a working FC1
test1 plus all updates so the release of the FC2 x86_64 final
will be of little value to me except to do testing for the
community.
I think you got your FC1's and FC2's mixed up in that last
sentence. Could you clarify?
IMHO, we should release FC1 for AMD64 because enough people have
spent effort on it that it would be wasted if it wasn't released.
It just wont likely have the same lifespan as the x86 release
did, because it has been released much later than the x86
release.
What is currently blocking FC1/AMD64 from being released anyway?
--
Mike A. Harris ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris
OS Systems Engineer - XFree86 maintainer - Red Hat
12:10 p.m.
On Tue, 2004-02-24 at 12:50, Mike A. Harris wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Gene C. wrote:
>1. With limited developer resources and FC2 test2 about two
>weeks away (it will have a x86_64 snapshot with needed i386
>packages), the better option is to put the resources into
>getting FC2 "right". With the test1 snapshot as a base and all
>of the package updates in development, the x86_64 versions
>should be in pretty good shape. Furthermore, the Red Hat build
>process is set up to handle x86_64 builds for development (and
>FC2 Test2) whereas x86_64 updated packages are few and far
>between. When the test2 snapshot rolls out, x86_64 updates will
>be available as a matter of course (or at least that is the
>plan).
All RPM packages are built on all 7 architectures, both in Fedora
Core 1, and Fedora Core 2, so from that angle, it doesn't make
any more work than we already have, to produce AMD64 packages.
There is some overhead involved with producing updates, but
_only_ if they are AMD64 specific updates. If they were updates
for x86 anyway, releasing for both x86 and AMD64 shouldn't really
pose additional effort.
it would be nice if FC1 updates were pushed to the mirrors. why isn't
this happening now, if the updates are already being built?
will FC1 updates for x86_64 be pushed when FC1 for x86_64 final is
released?
thanks
rob.
1:26 p.m.
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 01:10:12PM -0500, Rob Myers wrote:
it would be nice if FC1 updates were pushed to the mirrors. why isn't
this happening now, if the updates are already being built?
I believe this is a result of the manual push required for test1.
will FC1 updates for x86_64 be pushed when FC1 for x86_64 final is
released?
They should.
Justin
3:38 p.m.
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Rob Myers wrote:
> All RPM packages are built on all 7 architectures, both in Fedora
> Core 1, and Fedora Core 2, so from that angle, it doesn't make
> any more work than we already have, to produce AMD64 packages.
>
> There is some overhead involved with producing updates, but
> _only_ if they are AMD64 specific updates. If they were updates
> for x86 anyway, releasing for both x86 and AMD64 shouldn't really
> pose additional effort.
it would be nice if FC1 updates were pushed to the mirrors. why isn't
this happening now, if the updates are already being built?
will FC1 updates for x86_64 be pushed when FC1 for x86_64 final is
released?
I don't know the answers to those questions unfortunately. I
just work here. ;o)
--
Mike A. Harris ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris
OS Systems Engineer - XFree86 maintainer - Red Hat
4:18 p.m.
On Tuesday 24 February 2004 12:50, Mike A. Harris wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Gene C. wrote:
[snip]
All RPM packages are built on all 7 architectures, both in Fedora
Core 1, and Fedora Core 2, so from that angle, it doesn't make
any more work than we already have, to produce AMD64 packages.
There is some overhead involved with producing updates, but
_only_ if they are AMD64 specific updates. If they were updates
for x86 anyway, releasing for both x86 and AMD64 shouldn't really
pose additional effort.
I agree. However, when I sent a private message to Mark McLoughlin yesterday
(private because the mailing lists were hosed), he sent the following to Bill
Nottingham:
Hi Gene,
Sorry, but I've no idea.
Bill, are testing updates only released for i386 or ...?
Cheers,
Mark.
And Bill's response was:
Currently only releases for x86 in general, because of the way
the process works.
Bill
[snip]
The only problem I see from the "work" angle, is that when Fedora
Core 1 goes end of life, it should go end of life on all
architectures simultaneously in my opinion, however if AMD64
release trails it, then either the AMD64 release isn't supported
for the same length of time from it's initial release, or else
additional effort would have to be spent supporting the AMD64
release for n months from release date. However if we supported
AMD64 for the same length of time as we planned to support x86,
then we might as well support both of them until the same EOL
date, as everything builds on both arches anyway.
EOL should be the current EOL for FC1. The fact that it might be shorter for
amd64 is not something I consider important.
Again, this is just some of my thoughts, bouncing in the air.
>2. At the current time, FC1 is more stable (especially with all
>of the updates applied) than the current state of FC2 (as could
>be expected since FC2 is still in development and testing). In
>addition, it is not at all difficult to rebuild the ix86
>packages for the x86_64 (I have done this for the current set of
>updates). FC1 test1 + updates is a fairly stable platform and
>should be pretty close to what would be available if FC1 x86_64
>final was released.
Agreed. And even after FC2 is finally released, it might be a
while before a 2.6.x based distribution could be considered as
stable as a final 2.4.x based distribution. In that case, I
would prefer myself to be running FC1 on an AMD64 box.
I have found that FC1 x86_64 test1 plus errata (should be close to what
would/will be final) to be quite stable.
>So, work on getting FC2 with varying stability (there will be
>problems) or put time in to roll out a FC1 x86_64 final? At the
>present time, I lean toward option 1. I do have a working FC1
>test1 plus all updates so the release of the FC2 x86_64 final
>will be of little value to me except to do testing for the
>community.
I think you got your FC1's and FC2's mixed up in that last
sentence. Could you clarify?
Oops. What I meant to say was that x86_64 FC1-test1 plus updates should be
more or less identical to x86_64 FC1 final plus updates -- that is pretty
much what I have now and thus the FC1 final will not improve things too much
for me. However, not everyone has these updates available or necessarily the
skills, etc. to create the updates themselves ... for them, we need a final.
IMHO, we should release FC1 for AMD64 because enough people have
spent effort on it that it would be wasted if it wasn't released.
It just wont likely have the same lifespan as the x86 release
did, because it has been released much later than the x86
release.
From my perspective, the person doing most of the work is Justin and I
believe
he sees doing both as a bit too much to be able to handle. I am not
knocking
him as he has done a lot of work for us all.
What is currently blocking FC1/AMD64 from being released anyway?
?? OK, over to you
other folks at Red Hat.
--
Gene
11:58 a.m.
On Tue, Feb 24, 2004 at 11:08:18AM -0500, Gene C. wrote:
Justin has raised an interesting question on his weblog concerning
Fedora core
and the amd64-- should developers waste time on FC1 x86_64 or put their
efforts into FC2 which will be available "real soon now"?
That was not exactly what I was referring to. I think FC1 for x86_64 needs
to go to release, simply for the people who care about the 2.4 kernels. I
was referring to a test1 release for FC2. I had originally planned for a
test1 of sorts, unofficial, for FC2, so that we were more inline with i386.
As it stands, things are moving very quickly. I am installing from devel
on a regular basis, but putting together a working installer with the 32bit
deps, etc has proved troubling simply because of the rate of change. I
would recommend people interested in a test1 for x86_64 install from
rawhide, then add the 32bit RPMs that are important to you. Test2 should
include an x86_64 release.
As for FC1, I would like to get it out so that I can focus more on FC2, but
I do not think sacrificing the release is the right thing to do, so I want
to get things out as quickly as possible.
Justin
4:20 p.m.
On Tuesday 24 February 2004 12:58, Justin M. Forbes wrote:
That was not exactly what I was referring to. I think FC1 for x86_64
needs
to go to release, simply for the people who care about the 2.4 kernels. I
was referring to a test1 release for FC2.
Sorry Justin. I misunderstood what you had said.
--
Gene
noon
On Tue, 2004-02-24 at 11:08, Gene C. wrote:
Justin has raised an interesting question on his weblog concerning
Fedora core
and the amd64-- should developers waste time on FC1 x86_64 or put their
efforts into FC2 which will be available "real soon now"?
I can see arguments for both situations but I wonder what other amd64 users
think.
for my server application availability/stability is number one. my
current configuration includes FC1 x86_64 test1 with a hand rolled 2.6
kernel.
my vote would be to support x86_64 fully with FC2 and thus kernel 2.6.
hopefully when FC2 is released it will be just as stable as FC1 is.
rob.
7350
days inactive
7365
days old
9 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Gene C. -
Justin M. Forbes -
Mike A. Harris -
Piet Delaney -
Rob Myers