So everything in Rawhide must be compiled with -fPIC?
pbrobinson at gmail.com
Fri Feb 20 19:08:32 UTC 2015
On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Peter Robinson <pbrobinson at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Also I've seen no performance analysis across all three architectures
>> to see the impact. I'll happily send you an XO-1 to test on (our
>> lowest supported device on i686 and also one of our most widely
>> deployed Fedora device) and ARM hardware if you've not got access to
> Side tangent. Maybe we should stop holding ourselves accountable to the XO-1.
I don't necessarily disagree, I don't believe we should be holding the
distro back for the device but at the same time it's a good example of
a widely deployed device running Fedora.
> OLPC doesn't produce these any longer. I don't even think you can get
> a XO-1.5 and the information on XO-1.75 makes it appear to be limited.
> Efforts appear to have shifted to ARM based laptop/tablet devices
> (XO-4). There's the whole Android angle now to, which frankly makes a
> lot of sense for them. Even the latest OLPC OS development release is
> based on Fedora 20 and is targeted at the XO-4 hardware.
You are correct as can be seen from the release notes  but then it
was in development from mid last year when F-20 was "stable" and there
are Community releases  that support all of the devices. There are
also people using and testing F-21 and even F-22.
> I understand the underlying OS on the XO-1 is Fedora based. However,
> the latest recommended update is Fedora 17 based and the latest
> available update (which is already noted as slow) is Fedora 18 based.
> It was a major downstream Fedora remix and somewhat a successful one
> at that. But the likelihood of OLPC XO-1 actually being impacted by
> changes made in Fedora 23 seems to be small. They've moved on. So
> should we.
Actually it wasn't very divergent from mainline Fedora at all.
Primarily kernel and sugar specifics actually, I was on the OS dev
It was used as an example of supported hardware that should be
considered in the impact of the changes we make. I can use a eeePC
netbook, a beagle bone black or any number of other low powered
devices if it would make you more comfortable. You as one of the
Fedora kernel people know the old hardwarw that people use.
The point that I was making was not that we should stop change for the
tailing end of the hardware that we currently support but to be aware
of the impact of the changes that are made and that not every use can
afford to have a nice shiny core i7 Asus/Lenovo/Mac device sitting on
their desk. You could probably use some crappy bottom of the line
cloud instance with 256Mb of RAM, shared CPU and dreadful disk IO as a
decent bottom end baseline actually, and yes I'm aware you wouldn't be
running the desktop apps we're discussing here on said platform.
> If you want to bring up arguments about ARM impacts to the XO-4, fine.
> At least that seems somewhat relevant.
I wouldn't as we don't currently support them as their kernel isn't
currently upstream, but substitute a beaglebone black, I'll happily
send both.... you can substitute any number of low end devices and my
point still remains the same!
More information about the devel