On Friday, June 3, 2016, Dann Frazier <[email protected]> wrote:
[ Reorganized to use inline replies ]
On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 12:49 PM, Kevin Gunn <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Matthias Klose <[email protected]> wrote:
>> LP: #1586026 asks for the removal of binary packages on arm64 which cannot
>> built with OpenGL ES. Do we really have to cripple an architecture like
>> I don't see any discussion about this. How does this affect things like
>> 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
> 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
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.
That's fair enough. I guess that's back to the original statement about
"Do we really have to cripple an architecture like>> this?"
It's not about the arch per se it's more about having offerings that match Gpus attached to that arch. So does it make sense to leave them in place and just know you'll have build failures in some cases?