[CentOS-devel] CentOS port to the ARM architecture?

Tue Dec 19 13:16:53 UTC 2006
Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists at hughesjr.com>

On Tue, 2006-12-19 at 13:34 +0100, Lennert Buytenhek wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 19, 2006 at 02:29:34PM +0200, Liviu Damian wrote:
> > >So far I have about 80% of Fedora Core 6 built for ARM, and with some
> > >minor gcc/glibc patching, it's been working pretty well for me so far.
> > >I suspect that the same patches applied to RHEL5 will produce a working
> > >version of RHEL5 for ARM without much effort.
> > 
> > RHEL5 is indeed based on Fedora Core 6, but has many patches and
> > improvements.  I'd suggest you to grab RHEL5 Beta 2 (install cd's +
> > sources) and start rebuilding
> I downloaded the ISO a couple of days ago and will try to start
> building stuff soon.
> > and removing the Red Hat branding. You can register for a free RHN
> > trial account and grab the isos.
> IIRC I just grabbed it off their ftp site.
> > >I wonder what steps are necessary and what the criteria to become an
> > >"official" CentOS arch port, apart from (obviously!) producing a set
> > >of RPMS.
> > 
> > I'm can't give you a certain answer because I'm not a CentOS
> > developer, but AFAIK you need to remove all Red Hat logos,
> > copywrights, etc and since Red Hat is not supporting the ARM
> > architecture, I'm afraid your port will not be as official as you
> > wish...
> I'm not very interested in doing an official RHEL5 arm port, I'm
> interested in porting CentOS 5 (whenever it comes out) to the ARM
> architecture and have ARM be an official CentOS arch.

I am interested in looking at rolling that in ... if you can make it
work and if you are willing to commit to maintaining it, I have no
issues in adding it as a CentOS Arch.

Once we have the official CentOS 5 beta done, we can roll in the changed
RPMS into your port and see what we can do.

The standard convention for changes (items that we need to modify) is to
mark them .centos. in the package name.

RedHat has pushed through RPMS with the %dist tag enabled, and has some
fc6 and others el5, etc.  We will probably have our distro have the
exact same names as RHEL releases unless (that looks like how we will do
it now) ... so the safe thing for package naming is just add a .centos.
to Release ... and if you need to add changes, .centos.1, .centos.2,

Again ... if you are committed to meeting the CentOS standards (only
change if required, will incorporate all our standard changes and build
from our SRPMS, and will maintain and do updates, I think we can add
this arch ... at least as a beta).

If it makes it though until the 5.1 (or maybe 5.2) respin and we are all
still happy, I think we can then roll it into the Official Arch set ...
those are all big ifs :P ... but I think it might be a good idea.

Of course, we would need to verify that the changes are OK ... figure
out how we are going to sign the packages with the official centos key,

Johnny Hughes
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20061219/82fd0622/attachment-0005.sig>