F20 System Wide Change: ARM as primary Architecture

[Peter Robinson]

> On 9 July 2013 10:57, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Miloslav Trmač <mitr at volny.cz> wrote:
>> > nnnOn Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 3:00 PM, Jaroslav Reznik <jreznik at redhat.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >> = Proposed System Wide Change: ARM as primary Architecture =
>> >> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ARM_as_Primary
>> >
>> > How many F19 packages currently fail to build (or are excluded but
>> > shouldn't be) on ARM?  How do we stand against the other items of
>> >
>> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Secondary_Architecture_Promotion_Requirements
>>
>> At F-19 gold we were missing around 233 source packages out of around
>> 13,500 total. These are broken down into a couple of groups:
>> - Non ARM packages (x86/PPC/s390)
>> - Languages not currerntly supported on ARM - eg D, a fpc and a few others
>> - Packages that have issues with their CFLAGS (and actually should be
>> fine if they used distro flags like they should)
>> - Random other problems.
>>
>> I'm planning on going through these again and document the remaining
>> packages.
>>
>
> How do we treat "Desktop" items where the package compiles fine but does not
> run well without external drivers (the GNOME on ARM conversation earlier )
> Or am I misreading that conversation.

The same way as we do now. In some cases there are drivers but they're
still in development and not stable (tegra/lima/freedreno), or there's
third party binary drivers (like mainline with the nVidia binary
drivers). The situation is improving rapidly for the 2D/3D accelerated
situation and in the mean time there are numerous other desktops that
run perfectly well. In time I'm sure we'll get to 100% parity with the
mainline platform but I don't believe anyone believes we're there now
but I don't see that as a blocker either.

Peter