On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 9:50 AM, Dennis Gilmore <dennis@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Sort of, yes. >> 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. s/best/any. > 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. I'd be agreeable to this. In a related vein, I plan on drafting a Change to drop one of the flavors of i686 kernel anyway (likely the non-PAE kernel). For something we don't expend time on and isn't a focus, building two variants just so we can keep really old hardware around is kind of silly. If it moves to a secondary arch, they secondary arch team can deal with it. josh _______________________________________________ cloud mailing list cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/cloud@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
