arm support of workstation product

[Josh Boyer]

On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Dennis Gilmore <dennis at ausil.us> wrote:
> -----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.

Ah, ok.  We should probably put a limiter on the Tech Spec for F21, or
conversely say it's a living document like we do with the PRD.

josh