F20 System Wide Change: ARM as primary Architecture

[Jonathan Masters]

And following the legitimate concerns about stack-protector this was raised by ARM into core Linaro as an urgent action for which engineering resource is being assigned to correct this deficiency ASAP. Thus within a day an issue has been noted that we were unaware of and is being worked through a process to correct it, as would be the case with any deficiency on x86. The stack protection stuff will be fixed. Let's bike shed over the next nitpick nuance that the anti-ARM crowd want to throw in the way ;)

-- 
Sent from my iPad

On Jul 11, 2013, at 12:14, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 6:15 AM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59 at srcf.ucam.org> wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 12:43:36AM -0400, DJ Delorie wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Stack protector is not a new requirement in Fedora. It's been part of
>>>> the distribution for years.
>>> 
>>> xterm has been part of the distribution for years also, but it's not a
>>> release requirement.
>> 
>> The assumption has always been that all primary architectures embody the
>> same level of functionality, with the exception of fundamental
>> differences between the architectures. If things that are currently
>> supported by the primary architectures cease to be supported by the
>> primary architectures, that's a strong argument that they're not
>> fundamental to Fedora. For example, in the absence of hardware nx
>> support, I wouldn't argue that ARM should be forced to implement
>> execshield - both because it's fundamentally tied to 32-bit x86, and
>> because we've given up on supporting it. But yes, if ARM wanted to ship
>> without xterm while the other primary architectures supported it, I'd
>> say that that would be a blocker for shipping ARM as a primary
>> architecture.
> 
> I think assumption is part of the problem here, you're assuming
> something that is different to the assumption of others but as it's
> not documented anywhere it means that neither opinion is neither right
> nor wrong.
> 
>> I think what's been missed here is that the secondary architecture
>> promotion guidelines were intended to be an addition to common sense
>> rather than a replacement for it. They didn't seek to be an exhaustive
>> list of things that had to be present for something to be a PA - they
>> were an attempt to shape out the grey areas. A primary architecture
>> should include everything that one could reasonable expect to be present
>> in Fedora, which includes security features.
> 
> And I agree that "common sense" is required here, we're not arguing
> that security features should be ignored and we weren't ignoring them,
> we made an assumption that because the kernel, the compiler options
> were there that so was the glibc rather than a boiler plate code  that
> made all of the rest of the components essentially useless.
> 
> As for the common sense about the desktop I don't necessarily agree
> that while the gnome desktop is the default that it's an explicit
> requirement. There's 4 million XOs shipping Fedora (both x86 and ARM)
> that don't ship with gnome3 as well as no doubt millions of instances
> of cloud images that don't have a requirement of a desktop yet we
> still call them Fedora... Fedora with a requirement for a desktop or a
> single desktop option I think is a thing of the past and while I would
> like to support it I don't believe it's common sense to have it as a
> blocker.
> 
> Peter
> -- 
> devel mailing list
> devel at lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel