On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Gordan Bobic <gor...@bobich.net> wrote: > On Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:22:23 -0600, Dennis Gilmore <den...@ausil.us> wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> I wanted to kick off a discussion, I think that with the work that >> Seneca is doing for armv6hl to support the Raspberry Pi most of the >> need for building sfp has gone away. I would like us to drop support >> for sfp in F19 that means that anyone running a kirkwood based system >> would get supported software updates for approximately 13 months from >> now. with cubie boards and other devices coming around that are cheap >> and more powerful and similar options I think there is little benefit >> to continuing to support sfp. >> >> Ive put in a request to get numbers of people using the arm and armhfp >> portions of mirrormanager to get some idea of the number of users out >> there, though i suspect most arm are raspberry pi and people building >> in mock. > > > I am inclined to agree. > > At the same time, however, this poses a few related questions? > > With essentially dropping armv5tel, does it make sense to replace > it with what is very obviously going to be an arch with extremely > short-lived support-worthyness? Or would it be better to just drop > everything less than armv7hl and be done with it, and free up all > the resources for focusing on the primary target? > > The focus question is particularly important considering that in > the near future there will also be the 64-bit ARM arch to support. > > Or to put it another way - if armv5tel is drop-worthy, does > what is essentially one device (the Pi) warrant the maintenance > of an arch all by itself? If the answer to this is close to > yes, then what about dropping armv7hl in favour of armv6hl as > the only supported 32-bit ARM arch?
We're not really replacing it. There's currently 3 arches across 2 koji instances. armv5tel and armv7 are on the "official" Fedora ARM secondary and the armv6hl is a project being run by Seneca. We'd be dropping armv5tel from the "official" project leaving only armv7 there with Seneca continuing to run the armv6hl project separately. armv6hl won't be added to the "official" Fedora ARM secondary infra. This is in preparation of promoting armv7 to a primary architecture at which point the Fedora ARM secondary will remain around for the lifecycle of F-17 - F-19 for building of updates. Once F-19 (or what ever the last armv7 release of Fedora ARM is as a secondary arch) is EOL that infra would be decommissioned. The armv6hl infra will remain as long as Seneca and others believe it's worth time in maintaining. > What is the performance gap, hardware being equal, between: > > armv5tel -> armv6hl > armv6hl -> armv7hl > > The answer to that question seems like it ought to factor > into any decision made. > > Do any of the long standing issues of armv5tel (atomics?) go > away when using armv6hl? Yes, atomics is supported on armv6hl. _______________________________________________ arm mailing list arm@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/arm
