On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 15:40:49 +0100
Timo Schöler <timo(a)riscworks.net> wrote:
On 12/17/2014 03:23 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
>>>>>> We briefly discussed priorities for Fedora 22 and I had
>>>>>> taken an action item to start an email conversation about
>>>>>> this. So here is what I would like to see for Fedora 22.
>>>>>> 1) Get the -mcpu and -mtune flags set properly for the LE
>>>>>> build. Should be -mcpu=power7 -mtune=power8
>>>>> done, all packages that honour the Fedora system wide compiler
>>>>> flags use them, if they don't it's a packaging bug
>>>>>> 2) Have a cloud image available
>>>>>> 3) For BE I would like another subarch. Same packages as the
>>>>>> current one but tuned for P8.
>>>>> you mean in addition to ppc64p7? can't we just switch ppc64p7
>>>>> from -mcpu=power7 -mtune=power7 to -mcpu=power7 -mtune=power8?
>>>> This makes sense to me as it then mirrors what we have in
>>>> ppc64le and it saves having more targets.
>>> The disadvantage of this would be to cut off users that have
>>> Power 7 systems and optimized code. So why would people want to
>>> optimize from Fedora 21 to Fedora 22. You would be taking a big
>>> step back in performance. I don't want to suggest keeping a
>>> subarch for each type of POWER system out there. I
>>> was thinking of keeping two. So when the next POWER arch that
>>> comes out, the Power 7 subarch goes away and you would have Power
>>> 8 and the new Power arch.
>> That would mean that enthusiasts like myself, happily running
>> Fedora on a Power 285 workstation, would lose Fedora?
> No, there's a sub arch called ppc64p7 which provides optimised
> binaries for a sub set of packages which has been a feature for a
> few releases and is what is being discussed with the terms "For BE
> I would like another subarch"
Okay, then I got that wrong.
>> I'd really like to keep it. Red Hat dropped Power5 support quite a
>> time ago, so if there ever comes a CentOS 7 ppc to life, it'd had
>> to be tweaked to run on those machines. *If*, that is.
>> Furthermore, Power6 boxes aren't that old, either.
> If there ever was a CentOS7 option for POWER
There's chatting about this, yes.
Last year I started on porting CentOS 5 onto Power, but got stuck due
to lack of spare time.
> I suspect they would take
> the same options for RHEL, and POWER6 dates back to 06/07 so define
Sure. At least a Power 5 box isn't that old it would be the same
category as a Sun SPARCstation 20, which is still supported by
What may be of importance is that the 285 is the last *real*
Would happily buy a new workstation by IBM or the OpenPower
consortium, too! :)
I am indeed just installing Final Release Candidate 6 (RC6)
Timo, how did the install go? Was is it as straightforward as placing
a DVD in the drive and run?