arm support of workstation product

[Dennis Gilmore]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Fri, 07 Mar 2014 12:03:28 -0800
Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 2014-03-07 at 19:49 +0000, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 07, 2014 at 02:43:10PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > 
> > > I won't speak for the rest of the WG as a whole, but in the few
> > > conversations I've had with people ARM wasn't something most
> > > thought was a target for Workstation.  It might be feasible for
> > > interested people to produce Workstation ARM images, but I would
> > > be surprised if that were made a requirement at this point.
> > 
> > There's ARM hardware that is, at least theoretically, capable of
> > running Workstation and has the kind of form factor for which
> > Workstation is probably the appropriate product. As long as the ARM
> > team are willing to take responsibility for ensuring drivers and
> > install media work, and as long as there's someone doing QA, it
> > seems like something we should support in an official sense.
> 
> I think it's reasonable to plan for its inclusion For The Future. From
> what I hear from dgilmore I'm not sure making it an official arch for
> F21 would be a great idea, but it seems sensible to keep it in mind
> for future inclusion while we're implementing the initial design. It
> certainly seems like workstation/desktop-class ARM hardware is a thing
> that's happening: there already are ARM-based systems probably
> powerful enough to run Workstation, the Utilite, the ARM Chromebooks.
> We don't have all the bits in place to support them *yet*, but it
> certainly seems like we will, and it seems reasonable to assume
> others will follow where they lead.

I am okay with planning it as a future things, Server plans to support
ARM, and Cloud has it listed as a future thing. I think we can make
things work in the f21 time frame on a subset of hardware. But I am
okay with it being nice to have, or slipping to f22. I raised my
concerns because today it looks like the only consideration is x86_64
with no possibility of anything else.

Dennis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)
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=kc1r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----