On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 7:14 PM Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler(a)chello.at> wrote:
Peter Robinson wrote:
> The problem with that is getting someone to do the work. The whole
> reason that the i686 kernel was retired was due to people not stepping
> up to do the maintenance of the kernel, and the kernel alone. Having
> been one of the few people in the community that's been involved in
> and lead arch bring ups and maintained architectures in the bad old
> days of secondary koji instances and continue to lead the ARMv7 and
> aarch64 architectures I can tell you it's not an insignificant amount
> of work, both the initial boot strap and ongoing maintenance. I've
> been involved in the alternate architecture projects in Fedora for ~
> 9.5 years and it's a LOT of work and it's not a do it once and it's
> done, it's constant and ongoing.
Well, to be fair, the initial bootstrapping wouldn't be that big an issue
because the bootstrap for x86_64+AVX2 would just be a copy of the normal
x86_64, which would then be gradually replaced by mass rebuilds.
Yep. This is how OpenMandriva bootstrapped the AMD Ryzen optimized
build. Their path also involved declaring a new architecture ("znver1"
is currently unknown to upstream rpm, libsolv, dnf, etc.).
The bigger issue is the resource overhead, and especially the scarce
resource that is time humans have to spend for debugging.
Right. The other thing to keep in mind is that this is only slightly
less scarce than distro developer friendly ARM hardware. At least for
the proposed architecture, most of us don't have the hardware to use
it. Regardless of the willingness of humans, most of us aren't going
to spend literally thousands of dollars to get new PCs that have the
necessary instructions. Many of us are likely not able to afford it,
and those who can are also mindful of how much waste that causes and
may not do it anyway.
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!