On Jul 13 12:59, James O'Connor wrote:
>
> > On Jul 13, 2017, at 6:08 AM, Karanbir Singh <kbsingh@centos.org> wrote:
> >
> > On 10/07/17 15:43, Jason DeTiberus wrote:
> >> With the current efforts under way with aarch64 and ppc64le, I would
> >> like to suggest that s390x also be added as an alternative architecture.
> >> Obviously hardware would be the biggest obstacle, but I do not see any
> >> reason why we couldn't get started with just emulated hardware.
> >
> > First thing we would need to get going is the distro bootstrap - given
> > that 7.x is now almost 3 years in - we will need to go back to the pre
> > release beta and bootstrap up from there.
> >
> > That also means we will need the corresponding fedora bits - which
> > should be available.
> >
> > Once we have that in place, we'll need to workout how best to get this
> > supported in cbs.centos.org, before moving to ci.centos.org support.
> >
> > I'd expected this to be quite a major commitment from someone over a
> > couple of months, given that hardware to back this in emulated mode wont
> > be a huge problem - it just wont be quick.
> >
>
> I would be willing to throw my hat into ring to help with the s390x port. Most of my ppc64le/ppc64 porting memory cells are still intact.
>
> Having real s390x builder vms like fedora would help https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/hosts?start=100&state=enabled&order=name
>
> -James
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS-devel mailing list
> CentOS-devel@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

I think we're pretty squarely in the emulation side of things. Access to
'real' s390x is hard to come by.

If there is a group committed to the bootstrap, let's get together and
talk about getting some resources assigned to this. Anyone else want in?