[fedora-arm] ExcludeArch tracker doesn't appear to be effective

drago01 drago01 at gmail.com
Wed Jun 11 16:03:35 UTC 2014

On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 10:14 AM, Richard W.M. Jones <rjones at redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 12:07:23AM +0200, drago01 wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 11:52 PM, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > So moving on from that.... why don't you feel comfortable pointing to
>> > the ARM port?
>> The question wasn't really directed at me but adding my 2 cents ...
>> basically on x86(_64) hardware I can point people at fedora and most
>> of the time it will work.
>> As for ARM if you get a random arm hardware chances are that it is
>> simply not supported or needs some manual hacks to get used.
>> That's not really a fedora specific problem but it makes ARM more of a
>> "gimmick" to me  ...  until hardware vendors catch up.
> As you say, mostly this is the nature of the platform.
> 32 bit ARM hardware is not self-describing, and not at all uniform
> (unlike PCs).  There is no BIOS.  There's no standard text display or
> serial port.

Yeah I know but it still makes it inferior to x86_64 ... debian seems
to be in a better
shape simply because it supported ARM for a long time (i.e there
builds for a larger set of boards).

I have never bough an ARM board (just got them through various ways)
the two that I still have do not
work on fedora. One can be made to work with some effort while the I
don't know what the state of the other one is.

> This ought to improve greatly with 64 bit ARM, where Red Hat are
> pushing for everything to support UEFI booting and ACPI for hardware
> description.  A single upstream open source kernel should [eventually]
> be able to boot on every aarch64 machine, even ones that have not been
> seen before.

Yeah looking forward to that. The current system does not scale for a
general purpose distribution.

More information about the devel mailing list