Discussion:
AMD 64 support
Pete Bradbury
2003-11-03 17:41:14 UTC
Permalink
Will the fedora project support the AMD 64 processor?
seth vidal
2003-11-03 17:42:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete Bradbury
Will the fedora project support the AMD 64 processor?
please read through the mailing list archives.

Thanks
-sv
Mike Snitzer
2003-11-03 19:34:01 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, Nov 03 2003 at 10:42,
Post by seth vidal
Post by Pete Bradbury
Will the fedora project support the AMD 64 processor?
please read through the mailing list archives.
Given that there has only been a handfull of references to the future of
fedora with regard to amd64... that's a bit cold no?

Unless I missed a really inciteful amd64 thread: Yum has support for
x86_64 (as of v2.0.4?). It would appear there are a few people interested
in a Fedora Core port to x86_64 but there has been little formal
discussion on getting that ball rolling.

Mike
Pete Bradbury
2003-11-03 20:16:18 UTC
Permalink
So should I infer from what you are saying that the AMD 64 port is some way
off in the distant future and that until Fedora on the '86 platform is
stabilised work is unlikely to proceed for this new processor?

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Snitzer" <***@lnxi.com>
To: <fedora-devel-***@redhat.com>
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 7:34 PM
Subject: Re: AMD 64 support
Post by Mike Snitzer
On Mon, Nov 03 2003 at 10:42,
Post by seth vidal
Post by Pete Bradbury
Will the fedora project support the AMD 64 processor?
please read through the mailing list archives.
Given that there has only been a handfull of references to the future of
fedora with regard to amd64... that's a bit cold no?
Unless I missed a really inciteful amd64 thread: Yum has support for
x86_64 (as of v2.0.4?). It would appear there are a few people interested
in a Fedora Core port to x86_64 but there has been little formal
discussion on getting that ball rolling.
Mike
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Bryan O'Sullivan
2003-11-03 20:27:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete Bradbury
So should I infer from what you are saying that the AMD 64 port is some way
off in the distant future and that until Fedora on the '86 platform is
stabilised work is unlikely to proceed for this new processor?
At least one person is working on an AMD64 build in his spare time. Red
Hat has made no official statements on native x86_64 support one way or
the other, but it's probably safe to assume that it's not a high
priority for now.

You should expect 32-bit Fedora to just run out of the box on AMD64
systems.

<b
Pete Bradbury
2003-11-03 20:33:07 UTC
Permalink
Thanks that last part - was what I was hoping :-)

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bryan O'Sullivan" <***@serpentine.com>
To: <fedora-devel-***@redhat.com>
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 8:27 PM
Subject: Re: AMD 64 support
Post by Bryan O'Sullivan
Post by Pete Bradbury
So should I infer from what you are saying that the AMD 64 port is some way
off in the distant future and that until Fedora on the '86 platform is
stabilised work is unlikely to proceed for this new processor?
At least one person is working on an AMD64 build in his spare time. Red
Hat has made no official statements on native x86_64 support one way or
the other, but it's probably safe to assume that it's not a high
priority for now.
You should expect 32-bit Fedora to just run out of the box on AMD64
systems.
<b
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Justin M. Forbes
2003-11-03 20:29:58 UTC
Permalink
I wouldnt say that... people are working on an AMD64 fedora currently.

Justin M. Forbes
Post by Pete Bradbury
So should I infer from what you are saying that the AMD 64 port is some way
off in the distant future and that until Fedora on the '86 platform is
stabilised work is unlikely to proceed for this new processor?
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 7:34 PM
Subject: Re: AMD 64 support
Post by Mike Snitzer
On Mon, Nov 03 2003 at 10:42,
Post by seth vidal
Post by Pete Bradbury
Will the fedora project support the AMD 64 processor?
please read through the mailing list archives.
Given that there has only been a handfull of references to the future of
fedora with regard to amd64... that's a bit cold no?
Unless I missed a really inciteful amd64 thread: Yum has support for
x86_64 (as of v2.0.4?). It would appear there are a few people interested
in a Fedora Core port to x86_64 but there has been little formal
discussion on getting that ball rolling.
Mike
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Mike Snitzer
2003-11-03 21:03:49 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, Nov 03 2003 at 13:29,
Post by Justin M. Forbes
I wouldnt say that... people are working on an AMD64 fedora currently.
Sure, I'd imagine (based on previous mails you've sent) you are one of
those people. But the fact remains that RedHat Inc. has full-blown
support for a native x86_64 install in RHELv3; yet they haven't said a
word about offering that technology to Fedora. This is quite likely by
design as they want to see the financial fruits of all their effort before
giving it away to the community they are fostering.

RedHat employees have said they openly encourage people to port Fedora to
other architectures. So the fedora community can take Fedora where they
want it to go; but RedHat likely won't act as the catalyst for things like
an x86_64 port. All understandable, its just frustrating in that they've
obviously done the required work; and they are perfectly content with
having the Fedora community duplicate that effort of formalizing 64bit
library and 32bit library coexistance and so on. For all I know RedHat
will weigh in and advise on such decisions.

So that said, has there been any big picture planning for how x86_64
support will be added to Fedora Core? A list of which tasks need to be
accomplished, who the stakeholders that will be contributing are, etc.

We may even want a new fedora-amd64-***@fedora.redhat.com mailing list
for the cause. Actually it might be nice if a fedora-<arch>-devel
mailing list were created for each architecture the Fedora community deems
worthy.

Mike
Rik van Riel
2003-11-03 21:12:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Snitzer
Sure, I'd imagine (based on previous mails you've sent) you are one of
those people. But the fact remains that RedHat Inc. has full-blown
support for a native x86_64 install in RHELv3; yet they haven't said a
word about offering that technology to Fedora.
All the RHEL3 source rpms are available for download;
the Fedora Core userspace RPMs are most likely already
being compiled for AMD64.

We just need some volunteers to pull things together
and put the AMD64 patches from Taroon into Fedora Core
(which is more work than it sounds, because the Taroon
kernel is close to RHL9, while Fedora is closer to the
upstream 2.4 kernel).
--
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan
Xose Vazquez Perez
2003-11-03 21:22:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rik van Riel
(which is more work than it sounds, because the Taroon
kernel is close to RHL9, while Fedora is closer to the
Sorry, but RHL9 and Taroon kernel are *very far* cousins.
2.4.21-4.EL is wonderful, 2.4.20-20.9 is not too good.
--
HTML mails are going to trash automagically
Rik van Riel
2003-11-04 02:42:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Xose Vazquez Perez
Post by Rik van Riel
(which is more work than it sounds, because the Taroon
kernel is close to RHL9, while Fedora is closer to the
Sorry, but RHL9 and Taroon kernel are *very far* cousins.
2.4.21-4.EL is wonderful, 2.4.20-20.9 is not too good.
True, they're rather far removed from each other by now ;)
--
"Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first place.
Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you are,
by definition, not smart enough to debug it." - Brian W. Kernighan
Xose Vazquez Perez
2003-11-04 02:51:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rik van Riel
Post by Xose Vazquez Perez
Sorry, but RHL9 and Taroon kernel are *very far* cousins.
2.4.21-4.EL is wonderful, 2.4.20-20.9 is not too good.
True, they're rather far removed from each other by now ;)
I hope that you will send fixes/minor_features to Tosatti.
2.4.23 is getting better :-)
--
HTML mails are going to trash automagically
Dave Jones
2003-11-04 01:19:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rik van Riel
We just need some volunteers to pull things together
and put the AMD64 patches from Taroon into Fedora Core
(which is more work than it sounds, because the Taroon
kernel is close to RHL9, while Fedora is closer to the
upstream 2.4 kernel).
I spent a day or two last week doing this (and various other
fixes). What I have so far is a very 'rough and ready' port,
but its mostly functional at least.

For the brave who want to try this..

1) Grab the x86_64 boot disk from x86_64 rawhide dir
2) Boot, and do a network install
This gets you a 64bit install based on the 2.4.20 kernel
that shipped with gingin64.
3) Now the fun bit. http://people.redhat.com/davej/amd64/
contains the above mentioned 'rough cut' of the amd64 kernel.

There's a bunch of known problems right now, like unresolved
symbols and the like, which I'll fix up over the next few days.
One word of warning, this has had very little testing/QA.
Do *not* trust these kernels with data you don't have backups of.

Happy hacking..

Dave
Tim Daly
2003-11-04 14:41:36 UTC
Permalink
Is there an open AMD64 machine on the web? I can get at Itaniums
using HP's Testdrive setup but they don't have an AMD64 online.
I have 3 apps that need to be ported.

Tim Daly
axiom at tenkan.org
daly at idsi.net
Sean Middleditch
2003-11-04 16:51:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Daly
Is there an open AMD64 machine on the web? I can get at Itaniums
using HP's Testdrive setup but they don't have an AMD64 online.
I have 3 apps that need to be ported.
SourceForge's compile farm has one, I believe, for projects hosted at
SourceForge. The compile farm is excellent for porting work, I don't
know what I'd do without it. (Well, yes I do - I'd have a lot of
software will small, silly portability buglets. ~,^ )
Post by Tim Daly
Tim Daly
axiom at tenkan.org
daly at idsi.net
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
--
Sean Middleditch <***@awesomeplay.com>
AwesomePlay Productions, Inc.
Mike A. Harris
2003-11-05 11:51:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Tim Daly
Is there an open AMD64 machine on the web? I can get at Itaniums
using HP's Testdrive setup but they don't have an AMD64 online.
I have 3 apps that need to be ported.
We don't currently have any publically useable machines with
shell accounts. It'd be nice to be able to offer that in the
future however, but I dunno if/how/when that'd happen. Part of
the infrastructure we need to discuss/plan/design/implement/etc.

I think Sourceforge has AMD64 hardware available to shell account
users, and perhaps even AMD does themselves. AMD64 is going to
be so widespread within the next 3-6 months IMHO that it
shouldn't be hard to find a shell by then anyway. ;o)
--
Mike A. Harris ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris
OS Systems Engineer - XFree86 maintainer - Red Hat
Bill Rugolsky Jr.
2003-11-03 21:24:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Snitzer
RedHat employees have said they openly encourage people to port Fedora to
other architectures. So the fedora community can take Fedora where they
want it to go; but RedHat likely won't act as the catalyst for things like
an x86_64 port. All understandable, its just frustrating in that they've
obviously done the required work; and they are perfectly content with
having the Fedora community duplicate that effort of formalizing 64bit
library and 32bit library coexistance and so on. For all I know RedHat
will weigh in and advise on such decisions.
There is no great hidden magic here. There are x86_64 package builds
in Rawhide, and the RHEL base is available as SRPMS. Sure, a lot of
work went into getting multi-arch to function properly in RHEL, and
the fruits of that are already available to you. To really contribute,
one will have to read and understand first, and the code is there for
you to peruse. Perhaps someone has thrown together a whitepaper on
multi-arch support. Or you can start by looking at the changelogs,
patches, and spec files for things like gcc, binutils, gdb, glibc, rpm, etc.

Regards,

Bill Rugolsky
Mike A. Harris
2003-11-05 11:58:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bill Rugolsky Jr.
Post by Mike Snitzer
RedHat employees have said they openly encourage people to port Fedora to
other architectures. So the fedora community can take Fedora where they
want it to go; but RedHat likely won't act as the catalyst for things like
an x86_64 port. All understandable, its just frustrating in that they've
obviously done the required work; and they are perfectly content with
having the Fedora community duplicate that effort of formalizing 64bit
library and 32bit library coexistance and so on. For all I know RedHat
will weigh in and advise on such decisions.
There is no great hidden magic here. There are x86_64 package
builds in Rawhide, and the RHEL base is available as SRPMS.
Sure, a lot of work went into getting multi-arch to function
properly in RHEL, and the fruits of that are already available
to you. To really contribute, one will have to read and
understand first, and the code is there for you to peruse.
Perhaps someone has thrown together a whitepaper on multi-arch
support. Or you can start by looking at the changelogs,
patches, and spec files for things like gcc, binutils, gdb,
glibc, rpm, etc.
There really isn't a lot one needs to know/care about to support
AMD64. Make sure rpm spec files, Makefiles and other build
scripts do not hard code /lib, /usr/lib et al. as directories to
look for libraries in, nor for directories to install libraries
into. On AMD64 all 64bit libraries are in /lib64, /usr/lib64
etc. This is done by using %{_libdir} instead of /usr/lib in the
rpm specfile, and /%{lib} instead of /lib. Similar constructs
for other library locations. Some packages need patching to do
this, others just need spec file tweaks. It's usually very
simple work for each package that takes 5-30 minutes depending on
package complexity.

As long as the code is 64bit clean, there isn't a lot of other
concerns to have. Just search the web for generic 64bit
portability notes/papers/HOWTO docs, etc.

For multiarch issues, that is what %{_libdir} is for as mentioned
above. Never hard code library paths ever. ;o) After building
an rpm, do an "rpm -qlp *.rpm" on all of the binary rpms it
produced, making sure no files were installed into /usr/lib,
/lib, /whatever/lib, etc.. and if so, fix it. ;o)

If an app crashes on 64bit but not 32, run it in gdb, and well...
um... well, fix it. ;o)
--
Mike A. Harris ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris
OS Systems Engineer - XFree86 maintainer - Red Hat
Michael K. Johnson
2003-11-04 12:41:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Snitzer
RedHat employees have said they openly encourage people to port Fedora to
other architectures. So the fedora community can take Fedora where they
want it to go; but RedHat likely won't act as the catalyst for things like
an x86_64 port. All understandable, its just frustrating in that they've
obviously done the required work; and they are perfectly content with
having the Fedora community duplicate that effort of formalizing 64bit
library and 32bit library coexistance and so on. For all I know RedHat
will weigh in and advise on such decisions.
What duplication? The biarch work needs no duplication. We're not
holding anything back; we just haven't cut iso images yet.
Post by Mike Snitzer
So that said, has there been any big picture planning for how x86_64
support will be added to Fedora Core? A list of which tasks need to be
accomplished, who the stakeholders that will be contributing are, etc.
Testing, testing, testing, and more testing.

I expect that ISO images will be available either from Justin or
Red Hat soon. When they are, test them.
Post by Mike Snitzer
for the cause. Actually it might be nice if a fedora-<arch>-devel
mailing list were created for each architecture the Fedora community deems
worthy.
I'd rather keep it all here on one list where everyone sees what is
going on.

michaelkjohnson

"He that composes himself is wiser than he that composes a book."
Linux Application Development -- Ben Franklin
http://people.redhat.com/johnsonm/lad/
Mike A. Harris
2003-11-05 11:48:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Snitzer
Post by Justin M. Forbes
I wouldnt say that... people are working on an AMD64 fedora currently.
Sure, I'd imagine (based on previous mails you've sent) you are
one of those people. But the fact remains that RedHat Inc. has
full-blown support for a native x86_64 install in RHELv3; yet
they haven't said a word about offering that technology to
Fedora. This is quite likely by design as they want to see the
financial fruits of all their effort before giving it away to
the community they are fostering.
Quite to the contrary. When asked, we always respond, just as I
am right this second. Our website also I believe contains
comments about possibilities of other ports.

Red Hat Linux has not had non-x86 ports for a long time now.
The last non-x86 port was Red Hat Linux 7.2 for Alpha and IA64.
Back in those days, ports to other architectures were done after
the main x86 port was done, and were done under contract to a
given hardware vendor or various vendors. Red Hat has never to
my knowledge produced the operating system for non-x86 processors
except under contract with a vendor who produces systems for the
given processor. While x86 is the mainstay, non-x86 processors
have traditionally just not been a viable profitable platform to
develop the OS for without partnerships and contracts to do the
work in order to make it worthwhile.

Red Hat Linux 9 development was the beginning of our quest to
build our OS simultaneously on all architectures we had contracts
to produce *some* product for. As such, starting then, and ever
since then, we have compiled all of our software on the following
processor platforms:

x86
AMD64
ia64
ppc
ppc64
s390
s390x

x86 is our flagship architecture due to it's obvious large
commodity status, so that is always done. All other
architectures are produced under contract with particular
vendors. We compile all of our software on all 7 architectures
religiously now in order to make things at least compile always
wether a given product we're doing will actually ship on that
architecture or ever be supported. This is because it is
somewhat easier to just keep everything building across the board
always, than it is to come back and roll a special port for a
given architecture down the road.

It also helps to keep the software of higher quality all around
because of the 7 architectures, we have 32bit little endian
(x86), 64bit little endian (ia64, AMD64), 32bit big
endian(ppc,s390), 64bit big endian(ppc64, s390x) completely
covered, maximizing portability between different endianness, as
well as architecture specific problems. This also helps to find
compiler and other toolchain problems much easier. A given
problem might only trigger on a particular architecture, but
might actually be a problem on all architectures. The more
architectural coverage that is seen by the code, the cleaner and
more portable the entire distribution becomes.

However, making sure all rpm packages compile on all 7
architectures is only one part of producing a Linux distribution.
Certain packages require architecture specific work, and that
might require a lot of developer attention in order to fix
problems that arise and are architecture specific. Also, special
features we develop on x86, would need to be ported to the other
architectures in question also, such as NPTL, exec-shield, and
other things. This requires massive kernel engineering time
commitment, glibc engineering time, gcc, XFree86, and other
hardware and toolchain related development. It isn't a small
task, and it doesn't come for free.

Our goal for Fedora Core was to produce an x86 distribution,
similar in nature to previous Red Hat Linux distribution
releases. Aside from that specific goal, another goal was to
continue with our goal to always build on all architectures, so
that the distribution is always as clean as possible. However
there never was a plan to officially release the distribution for
other archtectures than x86.

That doesn't in any way mean that Red Hat does not want to see
non-x86 distribution ports happen. It means that non-x86 ports
were not official Fedora Core 1 project goal targets, and that
aside from making sure all packages build cleanly on all
architectures, there hasn't really been any architecture
specific work done, except more or less on a voluntary basis by
particular developers interested in investigating a problem on a
given non-target arch, or problems that occured in RHEL testing
and got fixed in RHEL, and thus also in Fedora Core.
Post by Mike Snitzer
RedHat employees have said they openly encourage people to port
Fedora to other architectures.
Absolutely. And many of us here _at_ Red Hat are some of the
people who will be doing that work ourselves as volunteers. I
for example am interested in making Fedora Core a reality on
AMD64 and Alpha processors. There are a large number of other
engineers here willing to volunteer to make that happen also.
Post by Mike Snitzer
So the fedora community can take Fedora where they want it to
go; but RedHat likely won't act as the catalyst for things like
an x86_64 port.
Well you're very wrong there I'm afraid. Very. Non-x86 ports
are going to be definitely volunteer driven. That doesn't mean
they'll have to be done outside Red Hat at all. It does mean
that when we put in our 8 hours of time at work here, we wont be
spending much if any of that time on non-x86 ports of Fedora.
However we don't put in 8 hour days at Red Hat now do we. ;o)

We need to have some time ourselves to volunteer to do some of
the things that need to be done. The most major thing for each
architecture without question, is the kernel. The kernel needs
work done for every architecture, and that is a LOT of hard work
that needs experienced knowledgeable kernel guru hands on it.
Right now Dave Jones <***@redhat.com> I hear is hacking on the
AMD64 kernel for Fedora Core 1. I don't know if any other kernel
folk are working with Dave on that or if he's doing it himself.
Either way, it is a lot of work, and it's volunteer work.
Remember that. glibc/gcc et al. I am told are more or less
pretty solid, and most of the rest of the distribution probably
is also.

Keep in mind though, that since non-x86 was not ever an official
target of Fedora Core, while we are interested in doing other
ports, and we want the community to get involved, throughout the
whole development cycle, even though all 7 architectures got
built, there have not been any test releases or betas of any of
it. The only major architectural testing that happened is for
RHEL 3. So in this case, it is RHEL 3 that has improved greatly
the quality of non-x86 architecture support for Fedora Core,
instead of the other way around.

/me sticks his tongue out

There are differences of course between what's in RHEL 3, and
what's in Fedora Core, and so there very well is likely to be
unknown bugs in Fedora Core on non-x86. First we need kernels
for each non-x86 architecture, then we need the installer ported
if necessary to work properly. It's not clear yet what other
work is needed to be done.
Post by Mike Snitzer
All understandable, its just frustrating in that they've
obviously done the required work; and they are perfectly content
with having the Fedora community duplicate that effort of
Considering all of the work that we have done, I'm rather
offended by your short sighted and rather thankless remarks to be
honest. ;o) We've set out to do a great amount of goodwill
here, and not because we had to. Because we WANT to, not just as
a company, but because making the distribution more open and
being a community project is supposed to be a _fun_ thing too.
We also do it because we ourselves not only work on this stuff
daily for a living, but we volunteer to work on it way beyond our
8 hours a day - because we love doing it. We are employees, but
the majority of us are also volunteers, and we'll be contributing
a lot of our own personal spare time to this project as well, and
that includes non-x86 architectures.
Post by Mike Snitzer
formalizing 64bit library and 32bit library coexistance and so
on. For all I know RedHat will weigh in and advise on such
decisions.
Wrong. Rawhide has the latest of everything. We're not holding
back or hiding *ANYTHING*. Fedora Core and rawhide contain the
absolute latest support for anything and everything we have to
offer. As I said above, there is some per architecture kernel
work, installer work, possibly other surprises and gotchas we
absolutely have no idea about yet, but it is not stuff just
sitting idle with no effort happening. But the effort that IS
occuring internally is volunteer driven. To attack us for this
is to insult each and every engineer here who goes out of their
way far beyond the call of duty to contribute something so that
people such as yourself can have bits to play with.
Post by Mike Snitzer
So that said, has there been any big picture planning for how
x86_64 support will be added to Fedora Core? A list of which
tasks need to be accomplished, who the stakeholders that will be
contributing are, etc.
We've been severely worked to the bone for the last n months
trying to finalize Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3, trying to finish
off Fedora Core, and other high priority critical tasks. We
haven't really had a lot of spare volunteer time to throw around
really as it was tied up either doing work chasing the clock for
our products, or tied up in other volunteer efforts.

I personally do not know of any list of what needs to be done for
each architecture. I stated roughly some of the items above.
There are some known AMD64 issues with XFree86 I'd like to work
on, but that's dependant on spare time. People can scan bugzilla
reports for open "all" "i386/i686/athlon" and "x86_64" bug
reports to get an idea what bugs are open for AMD64. Feel free
to report new ones too.

It'd be a great idea to have a wiki on fedora.redhat.com with
proper ACLs, which allowed Red Hat engineers and Fedora project
community volunteers to place this kind of information.
Post by Mike Snitzer
mailing list for the cause. Actually it might be nice if a
fedora-<arch>-devel mailing list were created for each
architecture the Fedora community deems worthy.
Personally I'm on about 130 mailing lists. I really don't need
another one. People are too quick to create new mailing lists
nowadays unnecessarily. All 3 existing fedora lists are for the
most part identical off topic clones of each other, and a new
list would probably just add a 4th clone list. fedora-devel-list
is the best place to have these discussions and hit everyone in
one spot. If the volume of per arch discussion really grows to
the size that it warrants another mailing list then that is
something to consider, but doing it prematurely is just
personally an annoyance at least to me. Others may feel
differently of course.

In closing, I'd like to kindly request that you please don't be
so critical about us. I think it is unfair to make these type of
judgements without the full factual information out there, and
without knowing just how much volunteerism goes into the
distribution by Red Hat engineers already. We opened the
distribution development via Fedora Core, so that we could work
more closely with the community, and so much more could be
accomplished both for the good of the community, and the good of
Red Hat as well. The open source concept applied to an entire
Linux distribution as a whole. We may or may not be crazy for
doing so, but then people thought Bob Young was crazy 10+ years
ago for starting a company based on open source technology too.

Boy were all those people wrong 10 years ago weren't they? ;o)

So we've opened things up, but that doesn't mean we can just push
buttons and make people's requests happen instantly. It takes
time to plan things, to develop them, etc. We also need to
plan, design, and develop whatever infrastructure we need in
order to make community involvement easier, perhaps that can even
be done directly in collaboration with people like yourself. We
need to put the infrastructure in place for people to build
packages, to test things, and various other suggestions people
have made or which we've come up with.

This wont happen overnight, and neither will an AMD64 port of
Fedora, nor an Alpha port - both of which I'm interested in. The
best thing people who truely want to be a part of this community
can do, is to become involved in a positive minded and open
manner, with due patience. Ask us questions, and we'll generally
answer them. Feel free to make suggestions too. Join the IRC
#fedora-devel channel, and communicate on the fedora-devel
mailing list. Please try to refrain from negativity and
insulting discussion though - that doesn't help anything and
doesn't improve the project, or the atmosphere. Keep an open
mind also, and to get involved wherever you feel comfortable
doing so.

If someone wants to make a list of what needs to be done for
AMD64, PPC or Alpha, by all means, someone start keeping track,
and we can probably put it up on a web page or something.
Actually what would be perfect, would be a public bug tracker
bug, which links to actual bug reports that are issues needing
work. That way we've got individual problems reported and/or
RFEs, as well as a tracker.

Count me in on AMD64 and Alpha, and many other mad hatters here
too. Dunno who all is interested in PPC, but there are some
internal folk. Perhaps we should have a web page listing
interested volunteers per architecture too? Damn, a wiki would
be nice, and I actually hate wikis. ;o)

Anyhow, hopefully I've squelched some conspiracy theories,
Slashdot FUD, and other bogosities now, and we can all work
together on producing real 64bit Fedora Core stuff, and get rid
of this x86 junk. ;oP
--
Mike A. Harris ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris
OS Systems Engineer - XFree86 maintainer - Red Hat
Dave Jones
2003-11-05 14:02:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike A. Harris
We need to have some time ourselves to volunteer to do some of
the things that need to be done. The most major thing for each
architecture without question, is the kernel. The kernel needs
work done for every architecture, and that is a LOT of hard work
that needs experienced knowledgeable kernel guru hands on it.
AMD64 kernel for Fedora Core 1. I don't know if any other kernel
folk are working with Dave on that or if he's doing it himself.
RHEL AMD64 guru Jim Paradis has lent a hand, and most of the
nptl fixes in the current Fedora kernel are based on the work
he did for RHEL. Thanks Jim 8-)
Post by Mike A. Harris
Wrong. Rawhide has the latest of everything. We're not holding
back or hiding *ANYTHING*. Fedora Core and rawhide contain the
absolute latest support for anything and everything we have to
offer.
Except when the packages are really experimental, when they
end up on our people pages instead. (http://people.redhat.com/davej/amd64
for example)
Post by Mike A. Harris
This wont happen overnight, and neither will an AMD64 port of
Fedora, nor an Alpha port - both of which I'm interested in.
Indeed. Whilst amd64 kernel is proceeding, it's a spare time
project, which has to compete with other spare time projects
which all compete for 'spare' time. Yesterday I spent the day
chasing RAID problems so no work at all got done on amd64 for eg.

It'll all happen, it just takes time.

Dave
Jeremy Portzer
2003-11-05 14:10:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike A. Harris
Post by Mike Snitzer
mailing list for the cause. Actually it might be nice if a
fedora-<arch>-devel mailing list were created for each
architecture the Fedora community deems worthy.
Personally I'm on about 130 mailing lists. I really don't need
another one. People are too quick to create new mailing lists
nowadays unnecessarily. All 3 existing fedora lists are for the
most part identical off topic clones of each other, and a new
list would probably just add a 4th clone list. fedora-devel-list
is the best place to have these discussions and hit everyone in
one spot. If the volume of per arch discussion really grows to
the size that it warrants another mailing list then that is
something to consider, but doing it prematurely is just
personally an annoyance at least to me. Others may feel
differently of course.
FWIW, there already is a list for AMD64 discussion, though it seems to
get only a limited amount of traffic.

http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/amd64-list

This was created for the "GinGin64" technology preview, which was a sort
of "alpha" prior to the Taroon beta for RHEL 3, but it could be used for
generic RHL/Fedora discussion for AMD64.

--Jeremy
--
/---------------------------------------------------------------------\
| Jeremy Portzer ***@pobox.com trilug.org/~jeremy |
| GPG Fingerprint: 712D 77C7 AB2D 2130 989F E135 6F9F F7BC CC1A 7B92 |
\---------------------------------------------------------------------/
Mike A. Harris
2003-11-05 17:41:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeremy Portzer
Post by Mike A. Harris
Post by Mike Snitzer
mailing list for the cause. Actually it might be nice if a
fedora-<arch>-devel mailing list were created for each
architecture the Fedora community deems worthy.
Personally I'm on about 130 mailing lists. I really don't need
another one. People are too quick to create new mailing lists
nowadays unnecessarily. All 3 existing fedora lists are for the
most part identical off topic clones of each other, and a new
list would probably just add a 4th clone list. fedora-devel-list
is the best place to have these discussions and hit everyone in
one spot. If the volume of per arch discussion really grows to
the size that it warrants another mailing list then that is
something to consider, but doing it prematurely is just
personally an annoyance at least to me. Others may feel
differently of course.
FWIW, there already is a list for AMD64 discussion, though it seems to
get only a limited amount of traffic.
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/amd64-list
This was created for the "GinGin64" technology preview, which was a sort
of "alpha" prior to the Taroon beta for RHEL 3, but it could be used for
generic RHL/Fedora discussion for AMD64.
amd64-list is a generic architecture list for the generalized
discussion of AMD64 stuff, particularly pertaining to Red Hat
products. It's similar in nature to ia64-list (does anyone even
post there anymore *grin*) and axp-list for Alpha for example.
--
Mike A. Harris ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris
OS Systems Engineer - XFree86 maintainer - Red Hat
Pete Bradbury
2003-11-05 14:29:42 UTC
Permalink
As I unwittingly opened the (other thread 'AMD 6 support') can of worms,
then can I make this request.

I'm no Linux guru - I just like what it (RH) has to offer.

I was introduced to and purchased my first and only copy of RH 6.1,
upgrading for free until now the 9.0. One great cooperative system which
must 'cost'
RH quite a number of dollars to support.

I like the familiar RH installer and the 'standard' whereabouts of things,
and am apprehensive of having to relearn if things are to be changed under
fedora.

Now however I'm feeling a bit deserted on two counts

1 RH changes to Fedora (for me that is) - what happens to update
notifications - does that stay the same?

2 Just as this was announced I 'enhanced' my home system to run the AMD 64 -
now what should I run on it? The new fedora (I tried it doesn't) or try a
RH9.0 (which I haven't) instal?

RH has produced great products - THANKS - , but as a non guru techie, type,
a simpler fedora interface on the web site to non techie RH users, might
cause less panic, and greater ressurance. Hand holding has always been a
heartwarming component of the linux community and only once or twice has
RTFM been addressed to me.
From what I've read so far on this thread I think I need to be patient and
just hang on, correct? Do nothing? Don't use my AMD 64 for linux?

I wait for a crash of thunder ...
Dave Jones
2003-11-05 16:00:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pete Bradbury
2 Just as this was announced I 'enhanced' my home system to run the AMD 64 -
now what should I run on it? The new fedora (I tried it doesn't)
I don't recall seeing this in bugzilla.

Dave
Mike Snitzer
2003-11-05 17:31:30 UTC
Permalink
Mike,

First let me thank you for your detailed, heartfelt insight. I was
obviously way off base with my comments; and as such made assumptions that
offended you and others. However, you did lay it on pretty thick ;)

I do appreciate all that RedHat and its' hardworking employees has done.
As is evidenced by a recent flame-war (in defense of RedHat) I started
on the beowulf.org mailing-list. I suggested people improve Fedora Core
as opposed to re-engineering/re-building RHEL3 to serve as the base distro
for various HPC clustering Linux distros.

http://www.beowulf.org/pipermail/beowulf/2003-November/008459.html
http://www.beowulf.org/pipermail/beowulf/2003-November/008472.html

How was I supposed to know if RedHat was or wasn't paying their engineers
to work on non-x86 architecture support during normal business hours?
From the _outside_ looking in it appeared as though RedHat Inc was
purposely pigeonholing Fedora to be x86-only; which led to my erroneous
speculation. Sorry for any grief I may have caused you, I *do* really
appreciate all the effort; I can't stress that enough.

I too _really_ want to contribute amd64 help to Fedora; but my current
project at work is all consuming.. hopefully I'll be able to find some
time.

Regards,
Mike
If someone wants to make a list of what needs to be done for
AMD64, PPC or Alpha, by all means, someone start keeping track,
and we can probably put it up on a web page or something.
Actually what would be perfect, would be a public bug tracker
bug, which links to actual bug reports that are issues needing
work. That way we've got individual problems reported and/or
RFEs, as well as a tracker.
Count me in on AMD64 and Alpha, and many other mad hatters here
too. Dunno who all is interested in PPC, but there are some
internal folk. Perhaps we should have a web page listing
interested volunteers per architecture too? Damn, a wiki would
be nice, and I actually hate wikis. ;o)
Sounds good to me.
Anyhow, hopefully I've squelched some conspiracy theories,
Slashdot FUD, and other bogosities now, and we can all work
together on producing real 64bit Fedora Core stuff, and get rid
of this x86 junk. ;oP
You have, thanks!
Peter Jones
2003-11-05 18:55:36 UTC
Permalink
Red Hat has never to my knowledge produced the operating system for
non-x86 processors except under contract with a vendor who produces
systems for the given processor.
This is just plain wrong; we did Alpha and SPARC both for quite some time
without being paid to do them.
While x86 is the mainstay, non-x86 processors have traditionally just
not been a viable profitable platform to develop the OS for without
partnerships and contracts to do the work in order to make it
worthwhile.
That's probably pretty accurate.
--
Peter

I was born not knowing and have had only a little time to
change that here and there.
-- Feynman
Mike A. Harris
2003-11-05 21:14:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter Jones
Red Hat has never to my knowledge produced the operating system for
non-x86 processors except under contract with a vendor who produces
systems for the given processor.
This is just plain wrong; we did Alpha and SPARC both for quite some time
without being paid to do them.
It's not wrong in the specific wording that I used, in particular
the "to my knowledge" part.

I started at Red Hat just after Red Hat Linux 7.0 was released,
and every architecture port we've done the entire time that I've
been here was contractual, unless I have missed something. Prior
to that I have no knowledge of what ports were funded or not,
however Sparc was dropped due to lack of commercial interest if
that means anything, and so was Alpha after 7.2.

I put "to my knowledge" intentionally, so as not to exclude the
possibility that there was something done outside of my
knowledge prior to my assimilation into The Hat. ;o)
Post by Peter Jones
While x86 is the mainstay, non-x86 processors have traditionally just
not been a viable profitable platform to develop the OS for without
partnerships and contracts to do the work in order to make it
worthwhile.
That's probably pretty accurate.
Until now... Lets change all that. ;o)
--
Mike A. Harris ftp://people.redhat.com/mharris
OS Systems Engineer - XFree86 maintainer - Red Hat
Loading...