-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 02/26/2014 04:03 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Kevin Fenzi (kevin@xxxxxxxxx) said: >> Another aspect of xfs we may want to investigate and get feedback >> from filesystem folks is how well xfs works on 32bit these days. >> >> >> RHEL7 doesn't have a 32bit version in their beta, so they only >> need to support 64bit xfs. Does the fact that we expect to have >> 32bit workstation and/or server weigh into this decision any? > > We expect to have a 32-bit workstation or server? > > Not trying to troll, but I don't know that any of these were > specifically discussed or specified in the products - are there any > arches where Fedora currently exists that we don't necessarily care > about having a particular product on? (For example, if you expand > to secondary arches, I'd question the idea of s390 Workstation.) > > Bill, who does have a 32-bit x86 server under his home desk... > That's one of the topics scheduled to be discussed in the Server Technical Specification meeting tomorrow. My personal opinion is that the Server should support any arch defined by FESCo as a "primary arch", which today would mean 32-bit and 64-bit x86 as well as armv7hl. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlMOWKAACgkQeiVVYja6o6Nq2wCglaZgxI1o5ygsqxPkCzCmsRo7 KCoAoKjTAfW+tOwgV9gLqsJuIJMACCY0 =7bJy -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
