On Monday, April 18, 2016 9:34:35 PM CDT Chris Murphy wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Dennis Gilmore <dennis@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Monday, April 18, 2016 2:59:18 PM CDT you wrote: > >> On 04/15/2016 05:28 PM, Joe Brockmeier wrote: > >> > On 04/15/2016 10:38 AM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > >> >> I would like us to demote them to secondary. > >> > > >> > Why? We've already decided to drop. I'm not opposed, just curious why. > >> > IIRC we were hitting a major problem with kernel compat as well? > >> > >> Pinging on this - I thought we'd reached a decision and wanted to > >> publicize that sooner than later. > >> > >> If there's a reason to prefer move to secondary, let's discuss. > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> jzb > > > > I prefer to move it to secondary because people could be relying on it > > still, it gives us a way to move forward and not be blocked on 32 bit > > x86. If it does not work then it will not get shipped. Just dropping them > > on the floor does not give as smooth a transition, nor does it give > > people that want it still the chance to pick it up and continue to carry > > it forward. > > Is the context Cloud, or in general? I think going from primary for > all products to totally dropping it is a problem, even if install > media is non-blocking. I have no stake in i686 at all, and I think > Cloud and Server are less affected by totally dropping i686 than > Workstation; but I think quitting i686 cold turkey needs > reconsideration. > > Anyway I think no one has done anything wrong here, but the warnings > of the kernel team were maybe considered something like, "oh, we'll > get by one more release or two by the skin of our teeth before it > blows up" and yet it just turned out that it's blowing up already. > > If the idea is we should block on i686 in general for upgrading, I'd > agree, even though it's a pain. > > For Cloud, maybe the way forward at worst is to support Cloud Atomic. > And the images are i686 only? Of course that assumes any problems with > binutil and kernel, or whatever else comes up, is sanely fixable with > a best effort. > My stance is that it hold true for all products, spins etc. I think we should just make i686 a secondary arch completely in f25, in order to do it and keep i686 multilib we need to redefine secondary arches. Dennis
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
