On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 01:03:53PM -0600, Dann Frazier wrote:
> [ Reorganized to use inline replies ]
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Kevin Gunn <kevin.gunn@canonical.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Matthias Klose <doko@ubuntu.com> wrote:
> >> LP: #1586026 asks for the removal of binary packages on arm64 which
> >> cannot be built with OpenGL ES. Do we really have to cripple an
> >> architecture like this? I don't see any discussion about this. How
> >> does this affect things like GPU accelerators and CUDA aware packages?
> > hey Matthias,
> > after reading the bug, it's implied the binaries being asked for removal
> > were somehow built with gl (possibly sw implementation of gl?)....please
> > cmiiaw
> > as to the request, never say never, but at least i've never seen an arm
> > chipset in the wild with a gl enabled gpu (like the bug indicates they're
> > all gles).
> > so i'm not sure of the value of having those binaries present where at least
> > in real application, there's no gl ?
> Ubuntu supports a growing number of ARM servers that have PCIe slots,
> so external GPUs can be added. CUDA is supported on those platforms
> upstream:
> https://developer.nvidia.com/cuda-toolkit-65
> And I do know there are users interested in CUDA on Ubuntu/arm64.
> I'm not experienced with CUDA myself - and don't have a card to test it - but
> it would be good to know if we're breaking that use case ahead of time.
I agree that CUDA should be a concern on arm64. However, this bug report is
about changes to the Qt GL stack on arm64. Qt is a GUI toolkit; I don't see
any reason that building Qt for GLES instead of GL should impact CUDA, do
you?
And while ARM64 servers have PCIe slots and can take GPUs, I don't expect
this to mean that we want to support a desktop stack in such a
configuration.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
