F20 System Wide Change: ARM as primary Architecture

[Josh Boyer]

On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 6:02 AM, Jaroslav Reznik <jreznik at redhat.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
>> Adam Williamson (awilliam at redhat.com) said:
>> > I've had an entry on my todo list _forever_ to complete the
>> > 'deliverables SOP' I started several releases ago:
>> >
>> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Adamwill/Draft_releng_SOP_deliverables
>> >
>> > (I don't really like the current layout, I was planning on revising it)
>> >
>> > The addition of a new arch with quite a pile of 'supported images'
>> > would certainly raise the priority of having such a thing. (We're
>> > already hitting a problem with our *current* primary arches in this
>> > area, though, in that the status of the multi-live, multi-arch and
>> > cloud/appliance images is rather unclear).
>>
>> Plus, in relation to this - the llvmpipe issue brings up that one of
>> the 'release blocking desktops' *does not work*. This would, by definition,
>> block the release unless we intend to have different criteria for ARM as a
>> primary arch.
>
> I don't see a problem with different set of blocking desktops for ARM, even
> as primary architecture. But it's really about resources - do we have people
> willing to work for example on LXDE (I'd say more resources friendly for
> current ARMs) - not saying there are no people, but more to support it as
> blocking desktop, if QA would be able to validate three desktops on two
> different platforms... And as we try to avoid "default" world in Fedora now,
> let's have LXDE "default" in some cases.

Is LXDE considered a release blocking desktop?  I honestly don't know.
 I also don't think it matters whether LXDE or FVMW2 or Gnome is the
default desktop on ARM.  The criteria should probably be that it ships
with a desktop that is considered release blocking.  If LXDE isn't
one, then perhaps it should be made so.  The goal here shouldn't be
"we have a desktop".  It should be "we have a desktop experience that
is the same on all primary architectures".  To that end, whichever
desktop is picked should be release blocking and it should function
the same on all primary architectures.

> For build times, Dennis has numbers prepared, we decided to let it out of
> the proposal and send it for discussion.

There was significant concern on this during the first time this came
up for discussion.  I think the proposal should at least include a
link to the overall build time improvements.  Clearly there has been
improvement, so make the proposal show that.

josh