Re: i686 kernel bug priority plan

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello Fellow Contributors!
>
> [...]
> It's possible down the road that, if there is no community interest in
> i686, the project might look at other options such as making i686 a
> secondary architecture. This is not because we want to drive away
> 32-bit users; but we're passionate about making the Fedora kernel work
> well for the majority of our user base. This prioritization helps us
> get closer to that goal.

Just to make this clear because this has suggestion has been brought
up multiple times ... while there might be less interests in running a
i686 kernel the story is very different for i686 user space (mostly
libraries but also applications like wine) even on a x86_64 host
kernel.

So don't draw a line from "no interests in i686 kernel" to "no
interesst in the i686 architecture and therefore it should be
secondary" .. its not as simple as with a completely isolated
architecture like ppc.
_______________________________________________
kernel mailing list
kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kernel





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora General Discussion]     [Older Fedora Users Archive]     [Fedora Advisory Board]     [Fedora Security]     [Fedora Devel Java]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [ATA RAID]     [Fedora Marketing]     [Fedora Mentors]     [Fedora Package Announce]     [Fedora Package Review]     [Fedora Music]     [Fedora Packaging]     [Centos]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Coolkey]     [Yum Users]     [Tux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Art]     [Fedora Docs]     [USB]     [Asterisk PBX]

  Powered by Linux