On 23/09/2024 21:49, Troy Dawson wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 7:39 AM Neal Gompa <ngompa13@gmail.com
> <mailto:ngompa13@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On Mon, Sep 23, 2024 at 10:25 AM Fabian Arrotin <arrfab@centos.org
>     <mailto:arrfab@centos.org>> wrote:
>      >
>      > It's not the first time that some SIGs members are reaching out
>     to me to
>      > ask about s390x architecture access for CBS
>     (https://cbs.centos.org <https://cbs.centos.org>)
>      >
>      > This time, it was on irc, in #centos-devel channel.
>      >
>      > I promised to open a public thread on devel list so that we can reach
>      > out to bigger audience (SIGs and project leaders).
>      >
>      > Myself, talking about the Infra SIG needs, I'd love to have access to
>      > s390x architecture, as my current plan includes building through
>     local
>      > mock on a different infra, and then having to launch manual
>     processes,
>      > as our infra packages are built / signed / distributed like every
>     other
>      > SIG, but so lacking s390x support.
>      >
>      > During that discussion on the centos-devel irc channel earlier today,
>      > someone mentioned
>      >
>     https://openmainframeproject.org/news/developer-resources-for-linux-on-s390x/ <https://openmainframeproject.org/news/developer-resources-for-linux-on-s390x/>
>      >
>      >
>      > Do you think (as SIGs) that it would be beneficial to eventually
>     engage
>      > ? But also searching for CentOS Board members' opinion/thought on
>     this
>      > first, as I don't want to start engaging with IBM through that public
>      > process if there is another way :)
>      >
>      > That reminds me this Fedora thread about similar request :
>      > https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/11122
>     <https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/11122>
>      >
>
>     I'm not personally interested in Hyperscale for this (though if
>     someone were to come to me and say they want to work on Hyperscale on
>     Z, I wouldn't say no...), but I think there are other SIGs who could
>     benefit if there is interest. Alternative Images is probably the main
>     one that might find it useful (assuming someone steps up who cares
>     about mainframes).
>
>
> I was recently approached about making various images on all the RHEL
> supported arches.
> The lack of s390x did come up.
> It was still in the "idea" phase, so I don't know if anything will come
> of it.
>
> Anyway, in short.  Currently, the Alternative Images SIG does not need
> it.  But it's possible that in the future we might need it.
>
> As a Board Member I think it would be a good idea to make s390x
> available to our SIGs.
> It's hard to know how much it will get used, but it's very possible that
> there are new SIGs formed, or new s390x uses for existing SIGs.
> We just won't know unless we try it.
>
> Troy
>

I don't mind, if the CentOS board permits me, try to engage with the
openmainframeproject and see if they'd like to sponsor one (or two)
s390x VMs, and under which conditions (including technical ones).

So does the board agrees on me doing that ? (that was the underlying
question in this thread ;-) )

--
Fabian Arrotin
The CentOS Project | https://www.centos.org
gpg key: 17F3B7A1 | @arrfab[@fosstodon.org]

_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.centos.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@lists.centos.org