"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 09:40:49AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 10:14:52AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote: >> > On 28/02/2023 10.03, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 08:59:52AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: >> > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 03:19:20AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> > > > > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 08:49:09AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote: >> > > > > > On 27/02/2023 21.12, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 11:50:07AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: >> > > > > > > > I feel like we should have separate deprecation entries for the >> > > > > > > > i686 host support, and for qemu-system-i386 emulator binary, as >> > > > > > > > although they're related they are independant features with >> > > > > > > > differing impact. eg removing qemu-system-i386 affects all >> > > > > > > > host architectures, not merely 32-bit x86 host, so I think we >> > > > > > > > can explain the impact more clearly if we separate them. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Removing qemu-system-i386 seems ok to me - I think qemu-system-x86_64 is >> > > > > > > a superset. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > Removing support for building on 32 bit systems seems like a pity - it's >> > > > > > > one of a small number of ways to run 64 bit binaries on 32 bit systems, >> > > > > > > and the maintainance overhead is quite small. >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Note: We're talking about 32-bit *x86* hosts here. Do you really think that >> > > > > > someone is still using QEMU usermode emulation >> > > > > > to run 64-bit binaries on a 32-bit x86 host?? ... If so, I'd be very surprised! >> > > > > >> > > > > I don't know - why x86 specifically? One can build a 32 bit binary on any host. >> > > > > I think 32 bit x86 environments are just more common in the cloud. >> > > > >> > > > Can you point to anything that backs up that assertion. Clouds I've >> > > > seen always give you a 64-bit environment, and many OS no longer >> > > > even ship 32-bit installable media. >> > > >> > > Sorry about being unclear. I meant that it seems easier to run CI in the >> > > cloud in a 32 bit x64 environment than get a 32 bit ARM environment. >> > >> > It's still doable ... but for how much longer? We're currently depending on >> > Fedora, but they also slowly drop more and more support for this >> > environment, see e.g.: >> >> FWIW, we should cull our fedora-i386-cross.docker dockerfile and >> replace it with a debian i686 dockerfile generated by lcitool. >> There's no compelling reason why i686 should be different from >> all our other cross builds which are based on Debian. The Debian >> lcitool generated container would have access to a wider range >> of deps than our hand written Fedora one. >> >> > https://www.theregister.com/2022/03/10/fedora_inches_closer_to_dropping/ >> >> With regards, >> Daniel > > ... and is closer to where 32 bit is likely to be deployed which is > systems like e.g. raspberry pi os which until recently was only > 32 bit. 32 bit ARM. How is that an argument for continued maintenance of 32 bit x86? If the argument goes like "32 bit x86 is easier to test in CI", then I don't buy it. Testing 64 bit ARM + 32 bit x86 does not magically replace testing 32 bit ARM. The question to answer: Is 32 bit x86 worth its upkeep? Two sub-questions: 1. Is it worth the human attention? 2. Is it worth (scarce!) CI minutes? I want to see an argument for benefits justifying the costs. A benefit like "somebody out there might still want to use it" I'd value at zero.
