On Wed, 2016-01-20 at 19:15 +0000, Chris Murphy wrote: > So I just read meeting minutes, and I think the WG should look into > 64-bit kernel + 32-bit everything else. With that, there's a > supported kernel. The i686 images will be created no matter what, per > releng's comments, so they might as well be in a supportable > condition. The problem with doing this, at least back in the yum era, is that yum derives its notion of host CPU architecture from that of the kernel (though whether that was by looking at package arch or uname I'm no longer able to recall), so the first 'yum upgrade' you ran would archgrade you to x86_64. So this would almost certainly require some support from the package manager. In a more theoretical sense, really the set of kernel interfaces that can be _expected_ to work correctly in a U32/K64 setup are the interfaces that the i686 builders hit in the process of building packages, which is probably quite a bit less than the set a real desktop would use. That's not an argument against, necessarily, but I'd expect to hit at least a few sui generis bugs if I tried to use such a beast. - ajax -- desktop mailing list desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/desktop@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
