Re: Validity of i686 as a release blocker

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



>> > Perhaps it is time that we evaluate where i686 stands in Fedora more
>> > closely.  For a starting suggestion, I would recommend that we do not
>> > treat it as a release blocking architecture.  This is not the same as
>> > demotion to secondary architecture status.  That has broader
>> > implications in both buildsys and ecosystem.  My suggestion is
>> > narrowly focused so that builds still proceed as today, but if there
>> > is something broken for i686 it does not block the release of whatever
>> > milestone we are pursuing.
>> >
>> > (To be clear, I would support a move to secondary arch status for
>> > i686, but I am not suggesting it at this time.)
>>
>> So to put a finer point on this, our shipping i686 images depends on a
>> broader community effort beyond the kernel maintainers in the Fedora
>> Engineering team.  That needs to precisely not mean more heroics on
>> the part of e.g. QE, rel-eng, etc.  I have no idea what the pushback
>> on this issue is, but I'm sure this thread will tell us.  But given
>> that Fedora is supposed to encourage such community effort, it would
>> be good to see what people are willing to do to build it.
>
> Here's my perspective as an i686 Fedora user...
>
> I have a box (2009-ish) that's in use as a file/backup server. As such, I don't
> spend a lot of time futzing with it - it doesn't run rawhide, it rarely runs
> the prereleases until beta or later time.  If something breaks, I'll look at
> it, send some feedback, update it as necessary, and back off to a working
> version.  And historically, it *hasn't* broken.
>
> But, if it did break that hard... would I spend a month digging into the
> kernel source and bisecting to try and find a fix? Or would I spend the
> $100-120 to slap a new motherboard in it and install the x86_64 version?
>
> I'd like to say I'd do the former. But realisitically it's the latter. And I
> wonder how much of the i686 Fedora-using community is in the same boat.

A lot of the users of i686 that I know use it from live images or
installing live images which, and I've not followed the issue too
closely so might be a little off here, wouldn't have hit the bug that
was being seen by the installer side of things. All those uses would
also generally not be a rawhide/dev branch user.

Peter
-- 
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux