On 07/29/2015 04:53 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:> the biggest blocker to going GA on the x86 build is the kernel; the > distro kernel we end up with isnt going to be the same as the upstream > x86_64 kernel configs. However, there hasent been a huge level of > feedback ( either positive or negative ) around those builds. So if you > are using it, or are interested in using it - do take the distro out for > a spin and let us know!I'm pretty sure that I posted this back when the beta was announced, but it seems to work just fine on my fanless VIA C7 firewall/router/proxy/ IPA/CUPS/Asterisk box. I've been waiting impatiently for this to go GA ever since, so I can start seriously bugging the EPEL guys. Re the kernel, how do the Springdale/PUIAS handle this issue? It might be worth copying their approach and/or coordinating. -- =======================================================================Ian Pilcher arequipeno at gmail.com -------- "I grew up before Mark Zuckerberg invented friendship" -------- ========================================================================
On 07/30/2015 11:20 AM, Ian Pilcher wrote:> I'm pretty sure that I posted this back when the beta was announced, but > it seems to work just fine on my fanless VIA C7 firewall/router/proxy/ > IPA/CUPS/Asterisk box. I've been waiting impatiently for this to go GA > ever since, so I can start seriously bugging the EPEL guys.I've been trying to bug them, but they don't seem to be interested to even look into it until CentOS 7 goes to GA. Anyways, if you're interested in it now, I've rebuilt *some* of the epel packages for i686 here (just for my personal use but I make them available in case someone else might benefit): http://pajamian.dhs.org/repos/el/7/epel/i386/
On 30/07/15 00:20, Ian Pilcher wrote:> On 07/29/2015 04:53 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote: >> the biggest blocker to going GA on the x86 build is the kernel; the >> distro kernel we end up with isnt going to be the same as the upstream >> x86_64 kernel configs. However, there hasent been a huge level of >> feedback ( either positive or negative ) around those builds. So if you >> are using it, or are interested in using it - do take the distro out for >> a spin and let us know! > > I'm pretty sure that I posted this back when the beta was announced, but > it seems to work just fine on my fanless VIA C7 firewall/router/proxy/ > IPA/CUPS/Asterisk box. I've been waiting impatiently for this to go GA > ever since, so I can start seriously bugging the EPEL guys. > > Re the kernel, how do the Springdale/PUIAS handle this issue? It might > be worth copying their approach and/or coordinating. >I dont believe they do either, they are disabling/enableing stuff in the kernel's to be different from the x86_64 upsteam as well. the real issue here is that if i386 ships with a different feature and capabilities spec : will it matter ? The answer might lay in exactly what is enabled / disabled - but since noone has come back so far with a 'this does not work for me', the assumption we might (should?) run with is that its marked as an AltArch, and delivers its own feature set regardless of what is in RHEL-7. - KB -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc
On 07/30/2015 09:00 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:>> Re the kernel, how do the Springdale/PUIAS handle this issue? It might >> be worth copying their approach and/or coordinating. > > I dont believe they do either, they are disabling/enableing stuff in the > kernel's to be different from the x86_64 upsteam as well.I downloaded both the CentOS and puias kernel-3.10.0-229.7.2.el7.i686.rpm packages, unpacked them and diffed the config-3.10.0-229.7.2.el7.i686 included in each, they are identical so it appears that puias has done *exactly* the same thing as CentOS to get the latest kernel to work.> the real issue here is that if i386 ships with a different feature and > capabilities spec : will it matter ?It might, but consider that if you're disabling a feature that is simply not supported on 32 bit CPUs then someone using the 32 bit build can't exactly complain if the kernel doesn't support it. If it is available, though, and just needs a bit of tweaking to get it to build for i386 then I would support keeping the feature and getting it to work so that the i386 kernel is as feature-compatible with the x86_64 as is reasonably possible.> The answer might lay in exactly > what is enabled / disabled - but since noone has come back so far with a > 'this does not work for me', the assumption we might (should?) run with > is that its marked as an AltArch, and delivers its own feature set > regardless of what is in RHEL-7.I'd rather have a kernel and build that works, but is missing a feature than nothing at all. Peter