RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements
drago01 at gmail.com
Tue Mar 20 16:57:37 UTC 2012
On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:50 PM, Brendan Conoboy <blc at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 03/20/2012 09:37 AM, drago01 wrote:
>>> I'm a big fan of cross compilation, but introducing it into Fedora in
>>> to support ARM seems unlikely to succeed for too many reasons to go into.
>> The reasons are? ....
> Okay, why not?
> The ones off the top of my head, and this is by no means exhaustive:
> 1. Fedora Policy (Which I imagine is based on the technical foundation of
> the following 5+ points and others I'm unaware of).
I said "technical" so lets take policy aside ...
> 2. Many packages assume a native execution environment which will not exist.
> Incredible undertaking to move 11000 packages to cross compilation
qemu? Should be still faster then doing the whole build on arm.
> 3. Absence of arm-linux cross compilers in the distribution.
Err yeah but nothing that can't be fixed.
> 4. If there were arm-linux cross compilers, how do you keep them in sync
> with native gcc?
Build from the same srpm.
> 5. Where does the sys-root for an arm-linux cross compiler come from?
> 6. Would koji then be native/cross ambidextrous? Who is going to do that?
No real answers to them yet but fixing them seems to be easier then
"make arm as fast as x86_64".
> For all these reasons and more we're not proposing cross compilation for
> ARM. Just doing so defies what it means to be PA.
We should somehow define what a PA is then. I wouldn't have added
"built on native hardware" because that does not really seem to
>> The hardware is way slower ... so we can just build on faster hardware
>> (x86_64). Which is the only sane way to do it.
>> Trying to build on ARM directly is kind of a gimmick but nothing one
>> can seriously use to build a whole operating system. (Yes it works but
>> it is way to slow).
> In couple years the hardware is going to be surprisingly comparable or
> exceed to what you're see on x86, especially as the number of cores
> skyrockets while the GHz continue to climb.
Might be true might be not ... we are talking about the next couple of
months not years.
> It's not a gimmick, we're just
> preparing for the future before it gets here. The only problem we face is
> that those cores are in multiple CPUs so we can't 'make -j' our way out of
> the build system problem.
Huh? Not sure I follow here.
Also I am not opposed to having ARM as PA, I just don't really think
we should do it the way it is proposed here (build on hardware that is
way slower then the rest of the builders).
More information about the devel