Remove ppc32 support

[Josh Boyer]

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Al Dunsmuir <al.dunsmuir at sympatico.ca> wrote:
> Hello Josh,
>
> On Friday, May 16, 2014, 2:50:15 PM, you wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 2:37 PM, Al Dunsmuir <al.dunsmuir at sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>> On Friday, May 16, 2014, 12:22:26 PM, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>>> The powerpc secondary arch team has disabled all ppc32 builds in koji for
>>>> F21 and beyond:
>>>
>>>> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ppc/2014-May/002801.html
>>>
>>>> There's little point in keeping support for ppc32 support in the kernel
>>>> package when it will never be built.  This also removes the -smp variant
>>>> and with_smp* support, as that was only used on ppc32.
>>>
>>> Josh,
>>>
>>> In  the  fedora-ppc list you will also find that there are a number of
>>> us  who  are  attempting to keep support for ppc32 active, and restore
>>> the ability to create new installations.
>
>> Yes.  I've commented on the thread.
>
>>> This may take the form of a remix - it has been suggested that we talk
>>> to  Fesco,  this this seems to set a precedent on how x84 32-bit might
>>> be treated in the future.
>
>> I doubt that.  i686 will most like go to a secondary arch status like
>> ppc64 is today.  ppc32 has been demoted even further down than
>> secondary arch, as the secondary arch team that was working on it no
>> longer wishes to do so.
>
>> In essence, ppc32 is now analogous to sparc and ia64 in Fedora.
>
> I  know  someone  who has sparc, alpha hardware.  I'm not sure if they
> have an ia64 box taking up space in a closet somewhere.

Great.  I know someone that has the hardware too.  We still removed
support for both in the kernel spec because it was entirely moribund.
Hardware availability is often secondary to sustained effort from
people that have that hardware.  History shows that people seem less
interested in keeping it running when they have to do the work or go
it alone in doing the work.

> A  core advantage for ppc32 is that one can still readily get hardware
> for a quite reasonable price locally or on EBay.
>
> Because  of branding, I would certainly prefer that ppc32 remain under
> the  Fedora  umbrella  as  a  seconday-secondary tertiary architecture
> rather than be forced to become a remix.

Branding?

>>> We  have no intention of preventing a successful Fedora 21 release for
>>> ppc64.  A  number of folks on the ppc64 team agree it is a useful goal
>>> (largely  those  with nostalgic feelings for vintage hardware). Others
>>> are more of the "take it out behind the barn and shoot it" category.
>>>
>>> Making  it  so  that ppc32 does not get built by default is one thing,
>
>> Actually, it's a very very big thing.  Those wishing to keep it alive
>> now need to come up with their own build hardware and build enviroment
>> setup.  This is by far the largest hurdle, and if it isn't done
>> quickly the ppc32 secondary-secondary (thirdary?) arch will quickly
>> fall behind and into disrepair.
> Some  folks  have  volunteered  to  host the builds, and provide build
> hardware. We'll see how that works out. If we do have to build outside
> the Fedora systems, there are going to be security considerations.

Outside build systems are probably going to be a requirement here.
That is how ARM started, so it's not unreasonable.  I doubt you're
going to get Fedora Infrastructure to host any ppc32 hardware in the
colo due to both space and configuration issues (they only take rack
machines).

>>> but  removing  the  ability to build ppc32 at all seems excessive, and
>>> certainly premature given the current situation.
>
>> Which is why I sent it as a patch instead of simply committed it.
>> Discussion is requested.  At a minimum though, I really would like to
>> drop the -smp flavor because it was of very limited use even when ppc
>> was a primary arch and it adds the most complication to the spec.
>
> Thanks for clarifying that.
>
> The  problem  with  dropping smp is that I and other have smp hardware
> that  we  would  like  to  use.  That is also likely the hardware that

Yes, I've seen that.  I'm willing to hold off on the removal for a bit
to see how quickly your effort gets off the ground.  I won't wait
forever though.

To be clear, whatever is built is entirely supported by the team doing
the ppc32 work.  Any bugs filed in Fedora bugzilla will get assigned
to the contact person.

> would  best  be  used  for builds, should "build native" and lack of a
> ppc32 cross compiler & binutils mean we can's use a ppc64 build host.

Cross-compiling is not allowed in Fedora anyway.  Which is really
unfortunate because it is actually a very useful thing to do in
situations just like this.

josh