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

[Dennis Gilmore]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 11 Jun 2014 18:03:35 +0200
drago01 <drago01 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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).

Debian is in the state its in because they build a bunch of different
kernels from different sources, we have chosen not to do that but take
the longer better road to use a unified kernel and support systems in a
unified manner. We have been working upstream in u-boot to make things
more standardised and make supporting new arm systems much much
simpler. its starting to pay off with much more supportable hardware
and systems that will just work in a standard fashion. debian chose to
hack in support for each different system in their installer and
setup/management tools. which is something we chose not to do as its
really not a supportable path.

Dennis
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (GNU/Linux)

iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJTmJoXAAoJEH7ltONmPFDRrBsQAKPZWL/5BoQLHe3jigTZtwml
N/sM0n6OgSKb28pA8d1nV1hHrKYKfTL/wFW29OL10MQAAZaTyOuQxznWzOh7yxKc
NJUpbF3MVnNkX6DvJ4/HSzzF0Tb1C7BGX2vccM1+0ZFZtdTb2s6+GZ0tOKNVFD20
jT67t/DATnY8WtwL5HvuStgO5f6G0cpQerpDyCgbfBWKDQT270VxzFL/AIGHYhPx
byvuOiROPqJAoHuJ9csPSKF+l5/b5S38bCYi6a2BTS06kfHmof0ct+NfIqrk11+3
ACTolPnN0Hcy2BRXglD+v4XC/KB1fCFfpb99muup7OE2fSqG0/u6yYwVEDdxWw1a
j7c7YeNFSnJ1UGt+v5iUpGp97gdThuc727qb15YNhLd4nniBdShn63NxOuEk68yA
wgfSd0x+dvj1aZRnYo4SMhXQOErUjNtFQYTASrkp/Qs2R6Zsza0+wYwqhFG2FZDQ
ybLcwVAJthDkhAcz0Bu0xak9BQmb8z7hgggsbZWwxP04qmnG3msoTw7icVLni6UI
yeaJOiKBS/7t1F9JmKdBE5susryFMYm0ESVSrOAVbKVS190IzcCxfOKGHRsPM3b/
xE8FG0wZAWgwFSgU7EZPGWQnQH1ABNlBkuTcO7Gt6+BHYo0+X+gI/LuQwAikon4g
dN3tQNAohUs9kHhYheOE
=33Vh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----