On Wed, 2015-02-25 at 14:30 +0100, drago01 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. > > 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. Right, Josh isn't talking about retiring the i686 runtime (particularly in terms of multiarch support on x86_64). Merely that work on i686-specific bugs in the kernel are going to see less attention so they can focus their limited resources on bugs with a wider impact.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
