CentOS 7 supports several architectures:
- x86-64 - aarch64 - ppc64le - armhfp - i386 - ppc64 - power9
All except 'x86-64' are stored in /altarch/7/ directory on mirror.centos.org and are mirrored only by subset of mirrors.
RHEL 8 treats aarch64, ppc64le, s390x, x86-64 as equals - package has to build on each of them to get included in repositories etc.
So the question is how CentOS 8 will be organized? Moving everything into mirrors.centos.org/centos/8/ will simplify live for all of those using non-x86 machines as repos will be widely mirrored and there will be no need of handling centos|altarch in external projects.
I think that /altarch/8/ may exist for armhfp, i386, etc architectures which are not a part of RHEL 8.
What do you think?
On Mon, Jun 3, 2019 at 3:39 AM Marcin Juszkiewicz marcin.juszkiewicz@linaro.org wrote:
CentOS 7 supports several architectures:
- x86-64
- aarch64
- ppc64le
- armhfp
- i386
- ppc64
- power9
All except 'x86-64' are stored in /altarch/7/ directory on mirror.centos.org and are mirrored only by subset of mirrors.
RHEL 8 treats aarch64, ppc64le, s390x, x86-64 as equals - package has to build on each of them to get included in repositories etc.
So the question is how CentOS 8 will be organized? Moving everything into mirrors.centos.org/centos/8/ will simplify live for all of those using non-x86 machines as repos will be widely mirrored and there will be no need of handling centos|altarch in external projects.
I think that /altarch/8/ may exist for armhfp, i386, etc architectures which are not a part of RHEL 8.
What do you think?
I think that re-arranging all the architectures that are listed in /etc/yum.repos.CentOS-Base.repo means changing the layout of all the mock and yum configs as well. It's not necessarily evil, but it would be confusing to be different for RHEL 8 from all the other architectures.
Nico Kadel-Garcia
On 6/3/19 2:44 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
I think that re-arranging all the architectures that are listed in /etc/yum.repos.CentOS-Base.repo means changing the layout of all the mock and yum configs as well. It's not necessarily evil, but it would be confusing to be different for RHEL 8 from all the other architectures.
The $basearch is included in yum configuration URLs. So:
[base] name=CentOS-$releasever - Base mirrorlist=http://mirrorlist.centos.org/?release=$releasever&arch=$basearch&rep... #baseurl=http://mirror.centos.org/centos/$releasever/os/$basearch/
That is from C7. I presume that the altarch RPM which provides the yum.repos.d has config files which use a different path (they include altarch in the directory for the base URL). That makes switching the location of the repos after launch trickier, and probably why it's worth discussing now.
I agree with the original message, some of the alt arches, ie aarch64, ppc64le, s390x should be moved to the main directory structure, so the packages are distributed more widely, and to all of the mirrors, for C8. Arm in particular is growing rapidly in popularity, and I suspect power will as well (over the life of C8), so it makes sense that those repos be treated on par with x86_64 for C8.
On 03/06/2019 09:38, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
CentOS 7 supports several architectures:
- x86-64
- aarch64
- ppc64le
- armhfp
- i386
- ppc64
- power9
All except 'x86-64' are stored in /altarch/7/ directory on mirror.centos.org and are mirrored only by subset of mirrors.
RHEL 8 treats aarch64, ppc64le, s390x, x86-64 as equals - package has to build on each of them to get included in repositories etc.
So the question is how CentOS 8 will be organized? Moving everything into mirrors.centos.org/centos/8/ will simplify live for all of those using non-x86 machines as repos will be widely mirrored and there will be no need of handling centos|altarch in external projects.
I think that /altarch/8/ may exist for armhfp, i386, etc architectures which are not a part of RHEL 8.
What do you think?
That's a good discussion to have indeed now , before it's released :) I'd say there are pros and cons now for both.
If me move aarch64/ppc64le under /centos/8 , people who were used to previous location will still try to find it under /altarch/
Also worth noting that if we move to /centos/ , more external mirrors will get content for those architectures that they probably weren't interested in (reason why altarch was a separate module, to let people opt-in) . That would also confuse those links :
https://www.centos.org/download/mirrors/ https://www.centos.org/download/altarch-mirrors/
So, while it's clear that aarch64 and ppc64le are now "primary" arches (built in parallel of the x86_64 on https://koji.mbox.centos.org/koji/) the real question is : do we still consider those "altarch" or not :)
On 03/06/2019 12:32, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
On 03/06/2019 09:38, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
CentOS 7 supports several architectures:
- x86-64
- aarch64
- ppc64le
- armhfp
- i386
- ppc64
- power9
Perhaps we should start by looking at that list and deciding which of them will be supported in el8.
Are all of ppc64le/ppc64 and power9 all going to be valid architectures in el8?
Is it now time to retire i386 - 32 bit Intel? The last mainstream Intel processors that were 32 bit only were manufactured in 2005. Yes, there are some outliers like laptop chips and a few ancient atoms that were 32 bit only for a few more years but the majority of 32 bit only processors are now 14 years old and will be 24 by the time CentOS 8 goes EOL. I would suggest that this is put out to grass and left to die. CentOS 7 i386 will be still be around until 2024 when those 32 bit processors will be close to 20 years old.
Trevor
On 6/3/19 6:50 AM, Trevor Hemsley via CentOS-devel wrote:
On 03/06/2019 12:32, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
On 03/06/2019 09:38, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
CentOS 7 supports several architectures:
- x86-64
- aarch64
- ppc64le
- armhfp
- i386
- ppc64
- power9
Perhaps we should start by looking at that list and deciding which of them will be supported in el8.
Are all of ppc64le/ppc64 and power9 all going to be valid architectures in el8?
Is it now time to retire i386 - 32 bit Intel? The last mainstream Intel processors that were 32 bit only were manufactured in 2005. Yes, there are some outliers like laptop chips and a few ancient atoms that were 32 bit only for a few more years but the majority of 32 bit only processors are now 14 years old and will be 24 by the time CentOS 8 goes EOL. I would suggest that this is put out to grass and left to die. CentOS 7 i386 will be still be around until 2024 when those 32 bit processors will be close to 20 years old.
Yes .. no more i386 as a separate arch.
Power9 is now part of ppc64le proper .. in el7 it required a specail kernel and qemu .. in el8, power8 ppc64le and power9 ppc64le are in the same tree. There is no ppc64
So the arches are x86_64 (with i686 multi library support), ppc64le (for both p8 and p9), aarch64 (all upstream arches as well) .. and armhfp as a secondary / unique arch.
We do not currently have a plan to build s390x .. but I would not rule out the possibility.
All but armhfp is also supported as an arch in RHEL-8.
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 8:56 AM Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
We do not currently have a plan to build s390x .. but I would not rule out the possibility.
I would be a fan of having an s390x build if it's not too much trouble.
On Tue, 4 Jun 2019 10:24:30 -0700 Lance Albertson lance@osuosl.org wrote:
On Tue, Jun 4, 2019 at 8:56 AM Johnny Hughes johnny@centos.org wrote:
We do not currently have a plan to build s390x .. but I would not rule out the possibility.
I would be a fan of having an s390x build if it's not too much trouble.
it's not only you, but I suppose one of the main issues is HW resources
Dan
taking care of Fedora on Power and Fedora on s390x
W dniu 03.06.2019 o 13:32, Fabian Arrotin pisze:
If me move aarch64/ppc64le under /centos/8 , people who were used to previous location will still try to find it under /altarch/
And how many people looked at /centos/7/ and then complained that package was not provided for arch they used?
Also worth noting that if we move to /centos/ , more external mirrors will get content for those architectures that they probably weren't interested in (reason why altarch was a separate module, to let people opt-in) .
That would also confuse those links :
https://www.centos.org/download/mirrors/ https://www.centos.org/download/altarch-mirrors/
Definition of altarch changes too. Also you can provide information which architectures are on which list.
And in meantime please give some a11y docs to webmaster as whole centos.org website is nightmare to look. My eyes are not young and I can not stand looking at those pages for more then minute.
So, while it's clear that aarch64 and ppc64le are now "primary" arches (built in parallel of the x86_64 on https://koji.mbox.centos.org/koji/) the real question is : do we still consider those "altarch" or not :)
I hope that with CentOS 9 or 10 we will have discussion with "do we consider x86-64 altarch or not" :D
On 6/3/19 6:32 AM, Fabian Arrotin wrote:
On 03/06/2019 09:38, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote:
CentOS 7 supports several architectures:
- x86-64
- aarch64
- ppc64le
- armhfp
- i386
- ppc64
- power9
All except 'x86-64' are stored in /altarch/7/ directory on mirror.centos.org and are mirrored only by subset of mirrors.
RHEL 8 treats aarch64, ppc64le, s390x, x86-64 as equals - package has to build on each of them to get included in repositories etc.
So the question is how CentOS 8 will be organized? Moving everything into mirrors.centos.org/centos/8/ will simplify live for all of those using non-x86 machines as repos will be widely mirrored and there will be no need of handling centos|altarch in external projects.
I think that /altarch/8/ may exist for armhfp, i386, etc architectures which are not a part of RHEL 8.
What do you think?
That's a good discussion to have indeed now , before it's released :) I'd say there are pros and cons now for both.
If me move aarch64/ppc64le under /centos/8 , people who were used to previous location will still try to find it under /altarch/
Also worth noting that if we move to /centos/ , more external mirrors will get content for those architectures that they probably weren't interested in (reason why altarch was a separate module, to let people opt-in) . That would also confuse those links :
https://www.centos.org/download/mirrors/ https://www.centos.org/download/altarch-mirrors/
So, while it's clear that aarch64 and ppc64le are now "primary" arches (built in parallel of the x86_64 on https://koji.mbox.centos.org/koji/) the real question is : do we still consider those "altarch" or not :)
I would say now that armhfp will be an altarch and ppc64le and aarch64 will be under centos/
This is mainly because we will be using koji to generate all the repositories, images and install media. Therefore, most likely it will need to be in the same places.
The reason armhfp is different is, it is split out on its own koji build instance because it does not have an upstream (that is RHEL-8) repo. So it can be in a different spot since it has no corresponding RHEL arch.
Could ppc64le and aarch64 go into altarch/ .. sure, if we can make it happen and if that is what we really want to do.
-
Dan Horák -
Fabian Arrotin -
Johnny Hughes -
Ladar Levison -
Lance Albertson -
Marcin Juszkiewicz -
Nico Kadel-Garcia -
Trevor Hemsley