<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Adam Miller <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:maxamillion@fedoraproject.org" target="_blank">maxamillion@fedoraproject.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 7:26 AM, Dennis Gilmore <<a href="mailto:dennis@ausil.us">dennis@ausil.us</a>> wrote:<br>
> Hi all,<br>
><br>
> Last night I had some time to myself, I decided to look at what it would take<br>
> to get atomic running on arm. after having to tweak some of the json files.<br>
> the hardcoded ref in it if not flexible at all<br>
> - "ref": "fedora-atomic/rawhide/x86_64/docker-host",<br>
> + "ref": "fedora-atomic/rawhide/armhfp/docker-host",<br>
><br>
> Neither is the hardcoded packages,<br>
> - "grub2", "grub2-efi", "ostree-grub2",<br>
> - "efibootmgr", "shim",<br>
> + "extlinux-bootloader",<br>
><br>
> the packages in every other part of our deliverables are dealt with by using<br>
> comps and yum/dnf skipping over missing things. Which made me curious about<br>
> how it was envisioned to support atomic on multiple arches as it seems to be<br>
> designed around a single arch silo.<br>
><br>
> However once I got past that I discovered that atomic and kubernetes both had<br>
> "ExclusiveArch: x86_64" in the spec files (Violating packaging guidelines in<br>
> the process) but they do actually build just fine for all the primary arches<br>
> and are installable on arm at least. I was able to make a atomic repo in the<br>
> end. I plan to throw together a kickstart and attempt to install it as soon<br>
> as I can.<br>
<br>
</span>This is awesome, let me know if you have something that you'd like<br>
help testing. I have a spare TrimSlice that's currently sitting idle<br>
and would love to see some Atomic action on it. :)<br>
<span class=""><br>
><br>
> What will it take to fix the packaging and get people on board for supporting<br>
> the greater world? could it be something we work with someone like<br>
> <a href="https://www.scaleway.com/" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.scaleway.com/</a> who have arm based cloud servers today to support?<br>
<br>
</span>How do we do that? Is there an official avenue to pursue working with<br>
cloud vendors? What was the process to get the Fedora Cloud image into<br>
IaaS providers with fedimg? (I assume some sort of relationship has to<br>
be established between Fedora as a project and the cloud provider)<br>
<br>
-AdamM<br>
<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Send the scaleway people an email, letting them know you are asking officially on behalf of Fedora cloud.<br></div><div>In my personal dealings, they have been very nice to work with.<br>I don't know how it came about, but I know that centos has 4 machines dedicated to them. I'm not saying that will happen, just saying it.<br><br><br></div><div>Troy</div></div></div></div>