> Peter Robinson <pbrobin...@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 >> From an infrastructure PoV the advantage that Power8 hardware has is >> that it's much closer to x86 in a number of ways and it'll enable us >> to mimic the deployment of things like virt builders in a single >> contiguous manner across all architectures to enable more simplified >> standardised manner to ease burden and increase automation from an >> infra PoV > > Thats good. > _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel
