<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 8:20 AM, Fabio M. Di Nitto <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:fdinitto@redhat.com" target="_blank">fdinitto@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----<br>
Hash: SHA256<br>
<div class="im"><br>
On 9/17/2012 10:26 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote:<br>
> No one currently is working on Fedora SPARC, and hasnt been for<br>
> quite some time. we would need to get gcc-4.7 bootstrapped as well<br>
> as a few other bits and pieces. its work that I just do not have<br>
> the time to do, I also do not have the interest that I used to<br>
> have. I think its a bit of a disservice to say that Fedora SPARC is<br>
> a secondary arch at this point. If people do not step up to get<br>
> things fixed and working im planning to take down the SPARC koji<br>
> instance and remove sparc support from fedora-packager.<br>
<br>
</div>Sadly I have to say that it is probably the wisest path.<br>
<br>
Fabio<br></blockquote></div><br><br>Hi,<br><br>It's not that I am not interested. I just don't have the time and hardware.<br>- A Sun Blade 150 is pretty painful to compile stuff on.<br>- Using the T4s and T5240s at work is not an option unless I create a logical domain aside the other ones, which doesn't work.<br>
- Having a V240 at home is something any electricity company would support but is too expensive for end-users.<br><br>So yes, the possibilities are sort of limited and then there is the doing 60+ hours of work in a week on top of that.<br>
<br>Ironic enough we actually DO use Linux for Sparc here at the company. It was setup as there was no Intel hardware available and they needed Linux installations fast...<br><br><br><br>Patrick<br><br>