On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Paul W. Frields <stickster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 12:58:20PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: >> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Matthew Miller >> <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 11:55:56AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: >> >> > But surely these 32-bit tablets aren't the only good place where these >> >> > things can be worked on? >> >> To clarify, Bastien is talking about tablets that have 64-bit CPUs and >> >> 64-bit kernels, but 32-bit UEFI firmware. Not i686 tablets. Which is >> >> actually pretty terrible in its own right, but still distinct from a >> >> 32-bit tablet. >> > >> > Ah, okay, thanks. How does *that* fit in with kernel team's plans? >> >> It mostly doesn't impact us. We already enable EFI_MIXED in the >> kernel. The remaining work is in shim and grub afaik. >> >> (Barring bugs and such of course.) > > So AIUI so far, there's no reason from the Workstation POV an i686 > tree/distro is strictly needed. I'm assuming no one is proposing > doing away with i686 userspace packages. (We would certainly care Not presently. Though full secondary arch status would imply that (or we'd have to redefine what secondary arch meant if we wanted to cover multilib like RHEL). > about that, for example because of prepackaged 32-bit software.) Yes... but probably less so than you think. Fedora doesn't exactly have a strong ISV presence and maybe this docker/container thing could help there anyway. > * Bastien, are you going to talk to grub/shim maintainer(s)? (I think > pjones works on both of these.) I believe he has, a number of times. josh -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
