On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 8:30 AM, drago01 <drago01@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Hello Fellow Contributors! >> >> [...] >> It's possible down the road that, if there is no community interest in >> i686, the project might look at other options such as making i686 a >> secondary architecture. This is not because we want to drive away >> 32-bit users; but we're passionate about making the Fedora kernel work >> well for the majority of our user base. This prioritization helps us >> get closer to that goal. > > Just to make this clear because this has suggestion has been brought > up multiple times ... while there might be less interests in running a > i686 kernel the story is very different for i686 user space (mostly > libraries but also applications like wine) even on a x86_64 host > kernel. Yes. The paragraph didn't say kernel and it certainly didn't say that the kernel team would be proposing demotion. It's simply possible that the rest of the project might look at the results that way. > So don't draw a line from "no interests in i686 kernel" to "no > interesst in the i686 architecture and therefore it should be > secondary" .. its not as simple as with a completely isolated > architecture like ppc. Actually, even your example is flawed. ppc64 ran ppc userspace almost exclusively until the RHEL6 era. It's really kind of the same thing. The major difference being that both of those architectures lacked much in the way of users and support at the time they were demoted. Anyway, thanks for your comment. It is helpful. josh -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
