On Jul 13 12:59, James O'Connor wrote: > > > On Jul 13, 2017, at 6:08 AM, Karanbir Singh <kbsingh at 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 at 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? --Brian