On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 11:31:09PM +0200, Tomasz Torcz wrote: >On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 01:14:07PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: >> On Mon, 2010-05-24 at 13:01 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> > On Sun, May 23, 2010 at 04:45:49PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote: >> > > People already ready run scripts to look for FTBFS packages now. Having >> > > to >> > > deal with all of these at once would be a real problem. Doing this this >> > > way >> > > allows us to spread out the fixing over time. >> > >> > The problem isn't FTBFS packages, but packages that require devious >> > workarounds because Koji isn't quite like any other distro out there. >> > >> > Koji is a Fedora userspace running on top of a RHEL 5 kernel. This >> > tests out all sorts of strange and interesting paths inside glibc, >> > because glibc emulates a lot of system calls which didn't exist in >> > RHEL 5. While extra testing is usually great, it's not clear that >> > dumping this testing on to package maintainers is a good thing, >> > particularly since Koji is about the only real world case where people >> > actually run mismatched userspace and kernel like this. (There is no >> > distro that I know of that advocates running a brand new userspace on >> > top of an old kernel -- but please correct me if I'm wrong about >> > that). >> >> While building in vms is starting to make sense on x86, it still doesn't >> make sense (or not possible) on other arches like ppc, s390, arm, sparc, >> ia64, etc... So building for those arches is going to continue to use >> the mock path, which means if we don't do it for x86, we're going to run >> into these odd code paths on even "odder" arches and make keeping those >> up and running even harder. > > http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/PowerPC > http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/ia64/kvm.txt > http://www.mjmwired.net/kernel/Documentation/s390/kvm.txt > http://sourceforge.net/projects/arm-kvm/ > + some mail-list disscussion about KVM on SPARC. > > It is certainly possible. Often in experimental state, but nevertheless. >We have the technology for VMs.
Actually, we don't for PowerPC. Right now, you have two options for virt on ppc/ppc64: 1) kvm for PPC 440. Fedora doesn't support PPC 440 (it could, but it's an embedded CPU and would require yet another kernel.) 2) LPARs for ppc64. This is actually a bit more feasible, but it requires you to have a POWER machine with LPAR support configured. Most of the existing builders are blades, which generally don't do LPARs. josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
