>> 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? > >>> 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 _______________________________________________ epel-devel mailing list epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel