Hans, thanks for raising this question once again. Today I again asked myself why s390x (the past) is even a primary architecture while RISC-V (the future) is not?
I do understand that a corporate sponsor entity needs to have a test-bed but this raises another questions. The COPR more-than-1-month degradation to QEMU emulation on x86_64 is particularly screaming - at this point we're not really supporting s390x, we're just maintaining the illusion of support. The counterargument is obviously going to be "but they pay/contribute significantly to Fedora". Well, if someone's contribution includes keeping the infrastructure running and they're consistently failing to do that, then the relationship needs renegotiating rather than letting it silently degrade everyone else's experience. Speaking technically what this renegotiation could actually mean exactly? Probably just demoting s390x from primary to secondary architecture, similar to RISC-V which we should promote instead. That way builds aren't blocked when s390x has issues, and anyone interested could still maintain it as a secondary if they want to. On Thu, May 7, 2026 at 12:24 PM Hans de Goede <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi, > > On 7-May-26 03:01, Kevin Fenzi via devel-announce wrote: > > Just to notify a wider audience, our s390x builders have been offline > > today due to a failure of a storage array. > > > > Folks have been working today to bring it back up, but the fix > > will require parts that need to be overnight shipped. > > > > Hopefully the machines will be back online tomorrow after the > > replacement is installed. > > > > Arched Builds submitted now will wait for s390x builders to > > be back to complete. > > > > You can watch https://www.fedorastatus.org/ and/or > > https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/13326 > > > > for further status. > > First of all, thank you Kevin and infrastructure team for all > your work on the Fedora infra, the below is not meant as > criticism of the Fedora infra team. > > It seems that lately there have been various capacity issues > wrt s390x and I think sometimes also powerpc builders. > > AFAICT Fedora mainly supports these 2 architectures because > IBM wants Fedora to supports these 2 architectures. > > Yet IBM seems to lately consistently fail to make adequate > resources (builders, test-vms for contributors) available for > these resources. > > For example I believe that copr has been forced to switch to very > slow builds for s390x and powerpc using emulation in qemu on > x86_64 builders? > > Looking at the COPR example I believe the under-resourcing problem > has become so big that we (the Fedora project) need to seriously > consider if we want to keep supporting s390x and powerpc going > forward or if the time has come to drop these ? > > Regards, > > Hans > > > -- > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] > Do not reply to spam, report it: > https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new -- With best regards, Peter Lemenkov. -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
