ARM as a primary architecture

Jon Ciesla limburgher at
Tue Mar 20 15:54:43 UTC 2012

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Peter Jones <pjones at> wrote:
> Jon, Brendan,
> In yesterday's FESCo meeting I told you I'd make a list of specific issues
> I have with the current proposal for ARM as a primary archictecture. There
> are some places where I think the current proposal fails to deal with some
> necessary aspects of becoming a primary architecture, and some places where
> I don't think the approach is quite right.  So without further ado:

Excellent, can you add this to the ticket?

> 1) mechanisms need to be in place to get package maintainers access to fix
>   arm-specific bugs in their packages
> 2) excludearch is not an option.  This is fundamentally contrary to being
>   a primary arch. In fact this is one of the defining characteristics of
>   a secondary arch.
> 3) arm must be integrated to the formal release criteria
> 4) when milestones occur, arm needs to be just as testible as other
>   primary architectures
> 5) installation methods must be in place.  I'm not saying it has to be
>   using the same model as x86, but when we get to beta, if it can't be
>   installed, it can't meet similar release criteria to existing or prior
>   primary arches. Where possible, we should be using anaconda for
>   installation, though I'd be open to looking at using it to build installed
>   images for machines with severe resource constraints.
> 6) supported platforms must be fully integrated into building and
>   installation.  If you need a special build procedure to make this happen
>   for kernel, we need to have rel-eng signing off saying they've approved
>   of whatever method that is, and QE signing off that they think it'll
>   result in a something they can claim is tested enough to release as a
>   primary arch.
> 7) it can't be a serious maintenance burdon due to build related issues.
>   We need a couple of groups to sign off that builds are fast enough, not
>   just on a "full distro rebuild" (throughput) level, but also on a
>   "doesn't destroy my workflow due to waiting on it" (latency) level.
> Obviously any feedback you guys have on this is welcome.
> --
>        Peter
> Old MacDonald had an agricultural real-estate tax abatement.
> 01234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789012345678901234567890123456789
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel at

in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie

More information about the devel mailing list