I've been asked to reach out to the PowerPC user community for this and #3309, and both @sharkcz and I are trying to solicit feedback from them right now.

I'll wait for @ngompa to collect feedback.

@ngompa are there any updates on the mentioned feedbacks?

There seemed to be a couple of folks in the Talos Workstation community (at least on their IRC) that are somewhat interested in Flatpaks on ppc64le. I also posted into some other places and oddly enough I got more asks about ppc64 (the big endian one which we don't have). But there is a bit of interest in it from the ppc64le folks. They weren't aware it existed before now.

Any update on qtwebengine and infrastructure?

I believe @sharkcz will be sending a pull request to enable this. I added him as a co-maintainer so he could upstream his patches from his COPR into our package. He already maintains the patch set for chromium in Fedora.

I am going to "upstream" qtwebengine ppc64le support from my copr to Fedora as part of the rebase to 6.8.2, a real upstreaming is a no-go. Chromium for ppc64le is handled by @than, I guess he is using the same source of the ppc64le patchset provided by Raptor Engineering.

Regarding build infra, the Fedora infra team is doing some steps to migrate to Power10 systems, but don't know the details.

I am going to "upstream" qtwebengine ppc64le support from my copr to Fedora as part of the rebase to 6.8.2, a real upstreaming is a no-go

This is what I meant by upstreaming. I'm referring to COPR -> Fedora.

The chromium for ppc64le is handled by me and the ppc64le patchset are provided by Raptor Engineering

I believe @sharkcz will be sending a pull request to enable this. I added him as a co-maintainer so he could upstream his patches from his COPR into our package. He already maintains the patch set for chromium in Fedora.

I am going to "upstream" qtwebengine ppc64le support from my copr to Fedora as part of the rebase to 6.8.2, a real upstreaming is a no-go. Chromium for ppc64le is handled by @than, I guess he is using the same source of the ppc64le patchset provided by Raptor Engineering.

Regarding build infra, the Fedora infra team is doing some steps to migrate to Power10 systems, but don't know the details.

It sounds like there is hope for progress in F42, so I would like to delay this and reassess for F43.

webengine upstreaming via https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/qt6-qtwebengine/pull-request/9

Ive retargeted this proposal to F43 as per @yselkowitz comment above. Does this change need more time to be discussed and/or fleshed out before it can be voted on as approved or rejected?

This needs to be held back for a few months to see how things go, since the goal here is to see how things play out with F42 first.

@yselkowitz Would this be considered effectively withdrawn for the time being?

I would ask that this be paused until closer to F43 change deadlines, at which point we can reassess with the hope that, if the main issues have been resolved, it can ultimately be withdrawn.

We have time until June. Let's punt for now.

updated metadata for F43 milestone

@yselkowitz Any update here?

Not yet, the forthcoming data center move is supposed to include an upgrade to POWER10, which hopefully will shrink the disparity in build times between ppc64le and x86_64/aarch64. As for community interest, maybe @ngompa and/or @sharkcz can follow up with their contacts at Flock and/or DevConf.cz in June?

Also, note that I don't usually start rebuilding flatpaks for the next version until after branching, so from my perspective there is still plenty of time.

Flock+DevConf are in progress. So let's reassess after DevConf is over.

DevConf is over. Were any decisions made during DevConf or after?

At this point, things are "fine enough" but we're looking toward the datacenter migration for improved POWER builder performance.

That should happen in about two weeks. So let's punt until after that.

Can we get a status update here?

The flatpak build pipeine is still down (https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/issue/12675) so I can't comment on that yet, but from what I'm seeing elsewhere, I'm hopeful that the POWER builders will be better. As for the community demand, I was hoping for input from @ngompa and/or @sharkcz.

There's some interest in it, our PowerPC desktop userbase is tiny but they are at least willing to get their hands dirty to fix things either upstream or in Fedora.

/me agrees with Neal

Now that releng has fixed the flatpak build pipeline, I am much happier with its performance. I would like to withdraw this change proposal.