RFC: Primary architecture promotion requirements

drago01 drago01 at gmail.com
Tue Mar 20 18:15:02 UTC 2012

On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 7:05 PM, Brendan Conoboy <blc at redhat.com> wrote:
> On 03/20/2012 10:44 AM, drago01 wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 20, 2012 at 5:56 PM, Brendan Conoboy<blc at redhat.com>  wrote:
>>> Please, please, no.  Cross compilation for Fedora cannot and will not
>>> ever
>>> get a secondary arch to primary.  We're talking man-decades of
>>> engineering
>>> time to solve all the problems.  Decades.
>> Sorry I am not buying that.
> Because you have vast experience to the contrary?

No I do believe that there is some work required to do it. But
*man-decades* is just an overstatement.

>  Look, even x86_64 is
> topping out on speed and moving to a more-core and more-systems-per-rack
> model.

I didn't claim otherwise ...

> Cross compilation solves yesterday's problem, not tomorrow's.

Not really no. Even if we get ARM up to reasonable speeds it could
help other arches in the future.

> If
> build speed truly is a fundamental issue to becoming PA the answer is to
> harness multiple systems for a single build, not to use a somewhat faster
> system to make up for the speed of a somewhat slower system.

Sure if you can solve the problem in a different way it is fine. I
just said then when I did software development on ARM building the
software on an x86_64 host was the only obvious choice.
So it sounds logical to apply it here where the goal is to build a
*whole operating system* and not just a specific program. (OK hardware
advanced since then but still).

> Scaling across
> more cores than fit in a single SMP Linux environment is the only sensible
> approach to future build speedups.

Fine I am not going to stop you from doing that.

>  Though is an interesting challenge, it
> is completely beyond the scope of primary architecture requirements.
>  Please, let's drop talk of cross compilation.

As I said in the other mail I am fine with that. I just had to respond
to the "man-decades" hyperbole. (Maybe I should have just ignored it).

More information about the devel mailing list