[ Reorganized to use inline replies ] On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Kevin Gunn <kevin.g...@canonical.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Matthias Klose <d...@ubuntu.com> wrote: >> >> LP: #1586026 asks for the removal of binary packages on arm64 which cannot >> be >> built with OpenGL ES. Do we really have to cripple an architecture like >> this? >> I don't see any discussion about this. How does this affect things like >> GPU >> accelerators and CUDA aware packages? > > hey Matthias, > after reading the bug, it's implied the binaries being asked for removal > were somehow built with gl (possibly sw implementation of gl?)....please > cmiiaw > > as to the request, never say never, but at least i've never seen an arm > chipset in the wild with a gl enabled gpu (like the bug indicates they're > all gles). > so i'm not sure of the value of having those binaries present where at least > in real application, there's no gl ?
Ubuntu supports a growing number of ARM servers that have PCIe slots, so external GPUs can be added. CUDA is supported on those platforms upstream: https://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-toolkit-65 And I do know there are users interested in CUDA on Ubuntu/arm64. I'm not experienced with CUDA myself - and don't have a card to test it - but it would be good to know if we're breaking that use case ahead of time. -dann -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
