On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 11:39:00AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> > grub2
>
> ARM (32 bit) boots using u-boot. Aarch64 machines will boot using
> grub2 (or is that grub2-efi? - you know better than I do :-)
This one's purely excluded from 32-bit ARM. The source package is grub2
regardless o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 11:39:00 +0100
"Richard W.M. Jones" wrote:
> Of the ones I know about ...
>
> > avgtime
>
> Written in the 'D' language which doesn't have support for ARM
> upstream.
>
> > grub2
>
> ARM (32 bit) boots using u-boot. Aarch64 m
On Thu, Jun 12, 2014 at 11:58:55 +0100,
Peter Robinson wrote:
I pulled git and have the following for ExclusiveArch: %{arm}:
joystick-support
While ARM doesn't have traditional joystick ports there have been some
people hook them up via GPIO and the like, enabled.
Would these likely end up
> I pulled git and have the following for ExclusiveArch: %{arm}:
>
> joystick-support
While ARM doesn't have traditional joystick ports there have been some
people hook them up via GPIO and the like, enabled.
> mcollective-qpid-plugin
> perl-qpid
These were both legacy hangover from before qpid-
Of the ones I know about ...
> avgtime
Written in the 'D' language which doesn't have support for ARM upstream.
> grub2
ARM (32 bit) boots using u-boot. Aarch64 machines will boot using
grub2 (or is that grub2-efi? - you know better than I do :-)
> hfsplus-tools
As discussed in this thread.
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 5:03 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> That's 60. In addition, the following packages are ExclusiveArch: in
> such a way that ARM is left out but PPC support is claimed:
>
> gprolog
> mono-bouncycastle
> nant
> pvs-sbcl
> xsupplicant
Oh, sbcl grew ARM support yesterday. Nice!
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:29:41PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> Ok, I was entirely unaware of that, and it does change things. Thanks
> for letting me know. I'll look into whether it's practical to generate a
> list of all the existing ExcludeArch packages and automatically check
> whether t
On 06/11/2014 03:09 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
Once upon a time, Przemek Klosowski said:
Fedora simply must support ARM because it ensures future viability.
The progress in ARM hardware platforms is amazing---ARM device sales
overtook x86 in 2010 [1] and of course the total number of ARM
processors
Once upon a time, Przemek Klosowski said:
> Fedora simply must support ARM because it ensures future viability.
> The progress in ARM hardware platforms is amazing---ARM device sales
> overtook x86 in 2010 [1] and of course the total number of ARM
> processors in the wild exceeds x86 by orders of
On 06/10/2014 04:12 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
So at the moment there's around 15,000 source packages in Fedora
mainline and you're getting depressed over exactly 24 of them? I'm not
sure how 24 packages is providing a inconsistent experience.
Fedora simply must support ARM because it ensures futu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 18:03:35 +0200
drago01 wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Richard W.M. Jones
> wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:07:23AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Peter Robinson
> >> wrote:
> >> >
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:07:23AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Peter Robinson
>> wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > So moving on from that why don't you feel comfortable pointing to
>> > the ARM port?
>>
>> The
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 09:14:24AM +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> This ought to improve greatly with 64 bit ARM, where Red Hat are
> pushing for everything to support UEFI booting and ACPI for hardware
> description. A single upstream open source kernel should [eventually]
> be able to boot o
On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:07:23AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > [...]
> > So moving on from that why don't you feel comfortable pointing to
> > the ARM port?
>
> The question wasn't really directed at me but adding my 2 cents ...
> basica
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 09:32:54PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> I don't think the current state of the ARM port is good enough.
Are you actually using the ARM ports? I'm using the 32 bit ARM
primary on two machines and the aarch64 secondary on a third, and they
work well.
If there are specifi
>> If you're going on just the bug tracker possibly but there's a lot of
>> stuff we fix and enhance that doesn't even make the that tracker, the
>> Ada stuff I mentioned earlier is but one example. Rightly or wrongly
>> it's not the canonical source of information. For example if I
>> discover an
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:07 PM, drago01 wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> [...]
>> So moving on from that why don't you feel comfortable pointing to
>> the ARM port?
>
> The question wasn't really directed at me but adding my 2 cents ...
> basically on x86(
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:52:19PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > In the past 6 months, 6 bugs added, 2 bugs closed -
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_activity.cgi?id=485251 .
>
> If you're going on just the bug tracker possibly but
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> [...]
> So moving on from that why don't you feel comfortable pointing to
> the ARM port?
The question wasn't really directed at me but adding my 2 cents ...
basically on x86(_64) hardware I can point people at fedora and most
of the t
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:37 PM, Adam Goode wrote:
> I seem to remember some kind of koji diff report that would come out
> periodically. Is there an automated run of this? I would love a
> dashboard or NxN matrix of diffs between all the arches. A timeseries
> would be perfect (to see the trends
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:20 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 09:49:58PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> > What's depressing is the trend, not the absolute count. I'd expected it
>> > to head rapidly towards zero after the first release, but instead it's
>> > still growing.
>>
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 09:49:58PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > What's depressing is the trend, not the absolute count. I'd expected it
> > to head rapidly towards zero after the first release, but instead it's
> > still growing.
>
> Is it? Where's your proof? From the patches and dealings wit
>> So at the moment there's around 15,000 source packages in Fedora
>> mainline and you're getting depressed over exactly 24 of them? I'm not
>> sure how 24 packages is providing a inconsistent experience. In some
>> cases the maintainer of the package hasn't bothered to close the bug
>> when suppo
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 09:12:35PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
> So at the moment there's around 15,000 source packages in Fedora
> mainline and you're getting depressed over exactly 24 of them? I'm not
> sure how 24 packages is providing a inconsistent experience. In some
> cases the maintainer
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 7:28 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=485251 is depressing. Nine
> bugs have been closed - of these, one is a review request that was
> dropped, two were incorrectly closed after an ExcludeArch was added and
> one was closed as a dupl
25 matches
Mail list logo
