On Tuesday, March 10, 2015 03:43:03 PM Michael Wolf wrote: > >> Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> ...snip... > >> > >>> > 1) Who is championing an architecture? > >>> > >>> Primarily IBM, but this will widen with the OpenPOWER foundation and > >>> it's members widening and HW from that initiative starting to become > >>> available. In the case of aarch64, if that happens, there will be > >>> similarities through Linaro Enterprise Group (LEG). > >> > >> Would we then have a tracker bug and a way for maintainers to call on > >> these resources when/if their packages don't build? > >> > >>> > 2) Where do developers get access to hardware that they can debug > >>> > issues if they want to. > >>> > >>> I'll let Mike (from IBM) answer this one in detail but there's a > >>> number of Universities hosting publicly accessible instances of HW > >>> with a process in place, Linaro has similar process with access to > >>> aarch64 HW running Fedora releases. > >> > >> This would be good to know. > >> > >>> > 3) How do we remove an architecture for whatever reasons? > > [Possible > > >>> > ones could be it turns out that CentOS i686 is dropped after one > >>> > subrelease... or PPC64be is dropped by IBM because everyone moved > >>> > to PPC64le. Or Itanium3 comes out and no one wants x86_64.] > >>> > >>> I don't see that would be any different to how we dropped PPC from > >>> mainline Fedora back in the F-12/13 timeframe but the architectures, > >>> once added to core RHEL, will be supported for the lifecycle of RHEL > >>> so I don't see that this process would be any different to how we > >>> dropped i686 or any of the 32 bit architectures in the transition > > from > > >>> el6 -> el7. I personally don't think it's actually worth expending > > too > > >>> much time on this process until the issue arises, cross the bridge > >>> when we get there so to speak. > >> > >> I'm assuming we would keep ppc64 around too for now on the rhel's we > >> support? > >> > >> ...snip... > >> > >>> I don't see those issues any different to any of the other > >>> architectures or hardware that's needed to run Fedora infrastructure > >>> whether it be servers, storage or network. We have Enterprise > > support > > >>> on the HW with all due process. > >> > >> Well, we don't have any ppc-le builders currently for EPEL. > >> I guess this would need to be figured out off list first? > >> > >> We do have secondary arch Fedora ones, but the EPEL builders are in > > the > > >> primary koji, so they would need to be their own thing and have > >> support, etc. I dont think we want to share builders with Fedora > >> secondary ppc... > >> > >> We can figure this out off list tho. > > > >Some of the new P8 hardware that was recently racked is intended to be > >for EPEL on ppc64/ppc64le, I just need to get it configured and build > >VMs done etc > > Just out of curiosity how many systems are currently in place to do the > EPEL builds for BE ppc64?
There is currently two builders for ppc64 Dennis
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list [email protected] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
