Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 23 for aarch64 is here!

On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 09:17 +, Peter Robinson wrote: > Basically the Raspberry Pi organisation has no urge to be a good > citizen in the open source community Peter, I choked on my coffee when I read that this morning. I've spent the last 4 hours biting my tongue. Sorry, I can't let that

Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 23 for aarch64 is here!

W dniu 10.11.2015 o 15:57, Clive Messer pisze: On Tue, 2015-11-10 at 09:17 +, Peter Robinson wrote: Basically the Raspberry Pi organisation has no urge to be a good citizen in the open source community I cannot believe you said that! At least put some context into that sentence. They

Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 23 for aarch64 is here!

W dniu 10.11.2015 o 05:23, Clive Messer pisze: On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 17:20 -0600, Troy Dawson wrote: So ... your point is? My point? That Fedora is bootable out-of-the-box on the hardware that ordinary (non-commercial) users are actually buying and using. PS. Fedora might support a lot

Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 23 for aarch64 is here!

On 11/10/15 03:35, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote: "On ARM it means raspberry/pi boards (iirc odroid ones were not good too)." On AArch64 all CE 96boards ones. . I don't understand this? What is the problem with the latest RPI-2b? Mine has been put aside [ 6+ months] since no end of trying Fedora

Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 23 for aarch64 is here!

On 11/10/15 04:17, Peter Robinson wrote: On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Bob Goodwin wrote: >On 11/10/15 03:35, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote: >> >>"On ARM it means raspberry/pi boards (iirc odroid ones were not good >>too)." On AArch64 all CE 96boards ones. > >. > >I

Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 23 for aarch64 is here!

W dniu 10.11.2015 o 09:45, Bob Goodwin pisze: On 11/10/15 03:35, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote: "On ARM it means raspberry/pi boards I don't understand this? What is the problem with the latest RPI-2b? No support in mainline kernel? ___ arm mailing

Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 23 for aarch64 is here!

On 11/10/15 03:59, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote: W dniu 10.11.2015 o 09:45, Bob Goodwin pisze: On 11/10/15 03:35, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote: "On ARM it means raspberry/pi boards I don't understand this? What is the problem with the latest RPI-2b? No support in mainline kernel? . Ok, that I

Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 23 for aarch64 is here!

>>"On ARM it means raspberry/pi boards (iirc odroid ones were not good >>too)." On AArch64 all CE 96boards ones. >>> >>> > >>> >. >>> > >>> >I don't understand this? What is the problem with the latest RPI-2b? >>> > Mine >>> >has been put aside [ 6+ months] since no end of trying Fedora

Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 23 for aarch64 is here!

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Bob Goodwin wrote: > On 11/10/15 03:35, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote: >> >> "On ARM it means raspberry/pi boards (iirc odroid ones were not good >> too)." On AArch64 all CE 96boards ones. > > . > > I don't understand this? What is the problem

Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 23 for aarch64 is here!

On Mon, 2015-11-09 at 17:20 -0600, Troy Dawson wrote: > So ... your point is? My point? That Fedora is bootable out-of-the-box on the hardware that ordinary (non-commercial) users are actually buying and using.  PS. Fedora might support a lot more ARM boards via the 32 bit distro with F23,

Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 23 for aarch64 is here!

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Clive Messer wrote: > On Wed, 2015-11-04 at 08:04 -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > > for Fedora to support systems > > they need to get support for their hardware upstream. > > Maybe it is time, at least for ARM platform, to look at

Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 23 for aarch64 is here!

On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 08:49:50 -0600 Jeffrey Bastian wrote: > On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 02:11:03PM +, Clive Messer wrote: > > ... just trying to make a point, that I do not understand the > > concept of a community based distribution being released, only > > officially

Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 23 for aarch64 is here!

On 11/04/2015 01:13 PM, Gerald Henriksen wrote: The problem is ARM and partners aren't delivering what was expected (promised?). I recall a presentation from a Red Hat employee where ARM had agreed that aarch64 needed a standard boot process so this craziness of needing custom boot software for

Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 23 for aarch64 is here!

On Wed, 04 Nov 2015 05:13:58 +, you wrote: >On Tue, 2015-11-03 at 17:38 +, Peter Robinson wrote: >> Fedora 23 for aarch64 released > >At the risk of incurring your wrath.. You should be complaining to ARM and their partners. >If I understand this correctly, the two "supported"

Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 23 for aarch64 is here!

On Wed, Nov 04, 2015 at 02:11:03PM +, Clive Messer wrote: > ... just trying to make a point, that I do not understand the concept > of a community based distribution being released, only officially > supporting big $, business class, enterprise solutions, rather > than the consumer level

Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 23 for aarch64 is here!

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 9:11 AM, Clive Messer wrote: > On Wed, 2015-11-04 at 09:44 +, Peter Robinson wrote: > >> Yet you com in very confrontational about it, > > I am sorry if you see it that way. Blunt and to the point, yes, but I > wasn't trying to be

Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 23 for aarch64 is here!

On 11/04/2015 02:11 PM, Clive Messer wrote: > I do not understand the concept of a community based distribution being > released, only officially supporting big $, business class, > enterprise solutions, rather than the consumer level boards which are > already available. There's quite a

Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 23 for aarch64 is here!

On 11/04/2015 02:47 PM, Clive Messer wrote: > Maybe it is time, at least for ARM platform, to look at "softening" the > "has to be upstream first" policy. This is hurting Fedora to the point > of making it irrelevant on ARM. You either are supporting the popular > consumer hardware that people are

Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 23 for aarch64 is here!

On Wed, 2015-11-04 at 08:04 -0600, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > for Fedora to support > systems > they need to get support for their hardware upstream. Maybe it is time, at least for ARM platform, to look at "softening" the "has to be upstream first" policy. This is hurting Fedora to the point of

Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 23 for aarch64 is here!

On Wed, 2015-11-04 at 09:44 +, Peter Robinson wrote: > Yet you com in very confrontational about it,  I am sorry if you see it that way. Blunt and to the point, yes, but I wasn't trying to be confrontational, just trying to make a point, that I do not understand the concept of a community

Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 23 for aarch64 is here!

On Wed, 2015-11-04 at 10:13 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > Your email seem to imply that the community somehow excludes > enterprise level contributors.   Eh, I never said that, nor did I mean to imply it! > You might not have > intended it to imply that, but it's the message those enterprise >

Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 23 for aarch64 is here!

* Clive Messer [04/11/2015 14:11] : > > I do not understand the concept of a community based distribution being > released, only officially supporting big $, business class, > enterprise solutions, rather than the consumer level boards which are > already available. This is a false dilemma.

Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 23 for aarch64 is here!

On Wed, Nov 4, 2015 at 5:13 AM, Clive Messer wrote: > On Tue, 2015-11-03 at 17:38 +, Peter Robinson wrote: >> Fedora 23 for aarch64 released > > At the risk of incurring your wrath.. > > If I understand this correctly, the two "supported" platforms are > > a)

[fedora-arm] Fedora 23 for aarch64 is here!

Fedora 23 for aarch64 released == It's (approximately) Halloween, so you know what that means — new Fedora! The Fedora 23 release is here, and it's better than ever before. We're pleased to bring you the latest incarnation of Fedora Server for aarch64 built with love

Re: [fedora-arm] Fedora 23 for aarch64 is here!

On Tue, 2015-11-03 at 17:38 +, Peter Robinson wrote: > Fedora 23 for aarch64 released At the risk of incurring your wrath.. If I understand this correctly, the two "supported" platforms are a) AMD Seattle 1100 b) Applied Micro X-Gene  Now, please correct me if I am wrong, (it's