On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 10:49 PM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. Well that's the reason why "i686 as secondary arch" is a bad idea. Not creating i686 media (and kernel) I could agree with but no i686 packages at all? Not really it would break a lot of third party (pre compiled apps) out there (skype, some steam games, ... ). -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop
