amd64 Fedora Core

[Gene C.]

On Tuesday 24 February 2004 12:50, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Gene C. wrote:
[snip]
>
> All RPM packages are built on all 7 architectures, both in Fedora
> Core 1, and Fedora Core 2, so from that angle, it doesn't make
> any more work than we already have, to produce AMD64 packages.
>
> There is some overhead involved with producing updates, but
> _only_ if they are AMD64 specific updates.  If they were updates
> for x86 anyway, releasing for both x86 and AMD64 shouldn't really
> pose additional effort.

I agree.  However, when I sent a private message to Mark McLoughlin yesterday 
(private because the mailing lists were hosed), he sent the following to Bill 
Nottingham:

Hi Gene,
        Sorry, but I've no idea.

        Bill, are testing updates only released for i386 or ...?

Cheers,
Mark.

And Bill's response was:

Currently only releases for x86 in general, because of the way
the process works.

Bill


[snip]
>
> The only problem I see from the "work" angle, is that when Fedora
> Core 1 goes end of life, it should go end of life on all
> architectures simultaneously in my opinion, however if AMD64
> release trails it, then either the AMD64 release isn't supported
> for the same length of time from it's initial release, or else
> additional effort would have to be spent supporting the AMD64
> release for n months from release date.  However if we supported
> AMD64 for the same length of time as we planned to support x86,
> then we might as well support both of them until the same EOL
> date, as everything builds on both arches anyway.

EOL should be the current EOL for FC1.  The fact that it might be shorter for 
amd64 is not something I consider important.

>
> Again, this is just some of my thoughts, bouncing in the air.
>
> >2.  At the current time, FC1 is more stable (especially with all
> >of the updates applied) than the current state of FC2 (as could
> >be expected since FC2 is still in development and testing).  In
> >addition, it is not at all difficult to rebuild the ix86
> >packages for the x86_64 (I have done this for the current set of
> >updates).  FC1 test1 + updates is a fairly stable platform and
> >should be pretty close to what would be available if FC1 x86_64
> >final was released.
>
> Agreed.  And even after FC2 is finally released, it might be a
> while before a 2.6.x based distribution could be considered as
> stable as a final 2.4.x based distribution.  In that case, I
> would prefer myself to be running FC1 on an AMD64 box.

I have found that FC1 x86_64 test1 plus errata (should be close to what 
would/will be final) to be quite stable.

>
> >So, work on getting FC2 with varying stability (there will be
> >problems) or put time in to roll out a FC1 x86_64 final? At the
> >present time, I lean toward option 1.  I do have a working FC1
> >test1 plus all updates so the release of the FC2 x86_64 final
> >will be of little value to me except to do testing for the
> >community.
>
> I think you got your FC1's and FC2's mixed up in that last
> sentence.  Could you clarify?

Oops.  What I meant to say was that x86_64 FC1-test1 plus updates should be 
more or less identical to x86_64 FC1 final plus updates -- that is pretty 
much what I have now and thus the FC1 final will not improve things too much 
for me.  However, not everyone has these updates available or necessarily the 
skills, etc. to create the updates themselves ... for them, we need a final.

>
> IMHO, we should release FC1 for AMD64 because enough people have
> spent effort on it that it would be wasted if it wasn't released.
> It just wont likely have the same lifespan as the x86 release
> did, because it has been released much later than the x86
> release.

>From my perspective, the person doing most of the work is Justin and I believe 
he sees doing both as a bit too much to be able to handle.  I am not knocking 
him as he has done a lot of work for us all.

>
> What is currently blocking FC1/AMD64 from being released anyway?
?? OK, over to you other folks at Red Hat.
-- 
Gene