Fedora 22

[Dan Horák]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 15:40:49 +0100
Timo Schöler <timo at riscworks.net> wrote:

> On 12/17/2014 03:23 PM, Peter Robinson wrote:
> >>>>>>   We briefly discussed priorities for Fedora 22 and I had
> >>>>>> taken an action item to start an email conversation about
> >>>>>> this.  So here is what I would like to see for Fedora 22.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1)  Get the -mcpu and -mtune flags set properly for the LE
> >>>>>> build. Should be -mcpu=power7 -mtune=power8
> >>>>>
> >>>>> done, all packages that honour the Fedora system wide compiler
> >>>>> flags use them, if they don't it's a packaging bug
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> 2) Have a cloud image available
> >>>>>> 3) For BE I would like another subarch.  Same packages as the
> >>>>>> current one but tuned for P8.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> you mean in addition to ppc64p7? can't we just switch ppc64p7
> >>>>> from -mcpu=power7 -mtune=power7 to -mcpu=power7 -mtune=power8?
> >>>>
> >>>> This makes sense to me as it then mirrors what we have in
> >>>> ppc64le and it saves having more targets.
> >>>
> >>> The disadvantage of this would be to cut off users that have
> >>> Power 7 systems and optimized code.  So why would people want to
> >>> optimize from Fedora 21 to Fedora 22.  You would be taking a big
> >>> step back in performance.  I don't want to suggest keeping a
> >>> subarch for each type of POWER system out there.  I
> >>> was thinking of keeping two.  So when the next POWER arch that
> >>> comes out, the Power 7 subarch goes away and you would have Power
> >>> 8 and the new Power arch.
> >>
> >> That would mean that enthusiasts like myself, happily running
> >> Fedora on a Power 285 workstation, would lose Fedora?
> > 
> > No, there's a sub arch called ppc64p7 which provides optimised
> > binaries for a sub set of packages which has been a feature for a
> > few releases and is what is being discussed with the terms "For BE
> > I would like another subarch"
> 
> Okay, then I got that wrong.
> 
> >> I'd really like to keep it. Red Hat dropped Power5 support quite a
> >> time ago, so if there ever comes a CentOS 7 ppc to life, it'd had
> >> to be tweaked to run on those machines. *If*, that is.
> >> Furthermore, Power6 boxes aren't that old, either.
> > 
> > If there ever was a CentOS7 option for POWER 
> 
> There's chatting about this, yes.
> 
> Last year I started on porting CentOS 5 onto Power, but got stuck due
> to lack of spare time.
> 
> > I suspect they would take
> > the same options for RHEL, and POWER6 dates back to 06/07 so define
> > old.
> 
> Sure. At least a Power 5 box isn't that old it would be the same
> category as a Sun SPARCstation 20, which is still supported by
> OpenBSD, e.g.
> 
> What may be of importance is that the 285 is the last *real*
> workstation, AFAIK.
> 
> Would happily buy a new workstation by IBM or the OpenPower
> consortium, too! :)
> 
> I am indeed just installing Final Release Candidate 6 (RC6)
> 
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/ppc/2014-December/003199.html
> 
> http://riscworks.net/static/Fedora/f21_285.jpg

Timo, how did the install go? Was is it as straightforward as placing
a DVD in the drive and run?


		Dan