From: fedora-arm-bounces(a)redhat.com [mailto:fedora-arm-
bounces(a)redhat.com] On Behalf Of Matthew Wilson
In the meantime, I have some questions. Apologies in advance
1) There are various different kernels from different sources.
used to there being a small set of "right" kernels (that is,
idea of "right") for x86. I fully appreciate that different
boards are quite different in capabilities (like different
a) Is there likely to be some standardised vanilla Fedora ARM
source? (Or is that simply the source RPM available for
Then patches /could/ be offered for the more common systems
Beagle Board & clones, SheevaPlug).
Yes, you can pick up the kernel source rpm for Fedora and use
Alternatively, you could just try the latest stable vanilla
b) Would it then make sense to offer these as pre-built RPMs
for common systems?
I guess someone was looking into making this available. In the
meanwhile, kernel images for commonly required boards are
accessible from the Fedora-ARM wiki.
c) Is there any guidance on which version is good to use as a
I've seen quite different kernel versions being used (from
Treat the latest to be the greatest? :-)
2) I understand a little bit about the different calling
FP differences (e.g. soft FPU versus VFP), and instruction set
differences (v5 versus v7).
a) Can the kernel can be safely built with a different
targeted? (I know there are different optimisation options
GCC. Apologies if this seems a bit newbie-ish.)
b) For FP-heavy programs (e.g. ogg encoding), is it possible to
the packages with VFP/NEON but still get them to work in a soft
system? I'd imagine any call to an external library would have
somehow be defined to use a different calling standard.
I am not entirely sure on this... Anyone?
3) There seem to be some missing dependencies in the packages
current Fedora ARM repository. For example, emacs is requiring
libotf, which doesn't seem to be there in the repository. And
likewise with the xorg-x11-font* packages needing ttmkdir. I'm
confused as to how the RPM could have been successfully built
it. What am I missing?
These rpms are now available on koji:
This usually happens because we check for the repoclosure of a
set of package groups. Packages beyond these may have dangling
dependencies. These usually get addressed, during the mass build
run (which will start in this week) or on-demand, like in this
4) I see there has been some discussion over unaligned data
(Oh, I remember that from the ARM2 days.) It seems as if the
Cortex-A8 cores allow unaligned data access when set up to do
Does this, in any way, help with the compatibility of packages
You can fix alignment errors in the current versions as well by:
# echo 2 > /proc/cpu/alignment
With hardware support it will be faster.
5) I've managed to get various source packages missing from the
ARM repositories to compile successfully (natively). I guess
a reason why there are not in the repos right now -- is that
down to time and priorities, or is there some blocking bugs
of these packages?
As you point out, it is about time and priorities. These will get
addressed in the mass build run that will start this week. If you
provide me with a list of packages I'll move them to the top of
I look forward to being able to contribute something back into
Great! You are welcome...