Talk:Architectures/ARM/Planning/Primary

From FedoraProject

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "A few comments/questions: 1) Which particular ARM subarchitectures are being proposed for promotion? Currently there is: * armv5tel * armv7l * armv7hl and soon 64-bit ARM...")
 
(comments on first questions)
Line 8: Line 8:
 
   
 
   
 
and soon 64-bit ARM.
 
and soon 64-bit ARM.
 +
 +
blc: There is currently armv5tel and armv7hl (No armv7l).  We don't want this proposal evaluated on a per-ABI basis if possible.  Think of arm as x86- we're just doing a couple different ABIs.
  
 
2) The question about slowing down builds has a misleading answer.  It focuses on mass rebuild, however builds for  
 
2) The question about slowing down builds has a misleading answer.  It focuses on mass rebuild, however builds for  
 
individual packages _will_ slow down because more builders doesn't really help on a per-package basis.  E.g. if you're building for i386, x86_64, arm5, arm7, and arm64 (arm8?) then you'll now be waiting for 3 additional arch builds to complete on a per-package basis.  Even with enterprise class ARM servers running at 1-1.6GHz, the individual ARM builds are likely going to be slower than the x86 builds.  I would suggest either changing the answer to reflect that, or provide data (once available) showing that build times for the ARM builds are comparable to x86.  This is important because one of the main detractions of PowerPC was the much slower per-package build time that held everything up.
 
individual packages _will_ slow down because more builders doesn't really help on a per-package basis.  E.g. if you're building for i386, x86_64, arm5, arm7, and arm64 (arm8?) then you'll now be waiting for 3 additional arch builds to complete on a per-package basis.  Even with enterprise class ARM servers running at 1-1.6GHz, the individual ARM builds are likely going to be slower than the x86 builds.  I would suggest either changing the answer to reflect that, or provide data (once available) showing that build times for the ARM builds are comparable to x86.  This is important because one of the main detractions of PowerPC was the much slower per-package build time that held everything up.
 +
 +
blc: We will provide data once available.  The average build should take a similar amount of time on the hardware we anticipate using.
  
 
3) I would suggest adding a hypothetical question along the lines of "If an ARM build fails for my package, does it fail the entire build until it is fixed when ARM is a primary arch?"  The answer should of course be yes.
 
3) I would suggest adding a hypothetical question along the lines of "If an ARM build fails for my package, does it fail the entire build until it is fixed when ARM is a primary arch?"  The answer should of course be yes.
 +
 +
blc: Agree!  I'll put something in.  Thanks for the review!

Revision as of 16:55, 16 February 2012

A few comments/questions:

1) Which particular ARM subarchitectures are being proposed for promotion? Currently there is:

* armv5tel
* armv7l
* armv7hl

and soon 64-bit ARM.

blc: There is currently armv5tel and armv7hl (No armv7l). We don't want this proposal evaluated on a per-ABI basis if possible. Think of arm as x86- we're just doing a couple different ABIs.

2) The question about slowing down builds has a misleading answer. It focuses on mass rebuild, however builds for individual packages _will_ slow down because more builders doesn't really help on a per-package basis. E.g. if you're building for i386, x86_64, arm5, arm7, and arm64 (arm8?) then you'll now be waiting for 3 additional arch builds to complete on a per-package basis. Even with enterprise class ARM servers running at 1-1.6GHz, the individual ARM builds are likely going to be slower than the x86 builds. I would suggest either changing the answer to reflect that, or provide data (once available) showing that build times for the ARM builds are comparable to x86. This is important because one of the main detractions of PowerPC was the much slower per-package build time that held everything up.

blc: We will provide data once available. The average build should take a similar amount of time on the hardware we anticipate using.

3) I would suggest adding a hypothetical question along the lines of "If an ARM build fails for my package, does it fail the entire build until it is fixed when ARM is a primary arch?" The answer should of course be yes.

blc: Agree! I'll put something in. Thanks for the review!