Re: 32-bit UEFI (was: Re: Validity of i686 as a release blocker)

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

 




On Apr 23, 2016 09:18, "Florian Weimer" <fweimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 08/13/2015 03:17 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 2015-08-04 at 10:47 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 10:40:28AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Ambivalent" is probably understated here.  It's hard to imagine
>>>> people securing i686 hardware these days to run a Workstation
>>>> experience, after all.
>>>
>>>
>>> The question, I think, is how much we want to prioritize the
>>> "Workstation experience" on older hardware (or on devices like the
>>> Baytrail tablets).
>>
>>
>> Just to this point - if we wanted to support the Baytrail tablets
>> properly we should probably get 64-on-32 working. Allowing 32-bit UEFI
>> installs probably isn't something we want to do officially.
>
>
> Has this changed due to IoT?
>

I am not sure there has been a very large amount of people interested in doing the work or looking at IoT on i386 since the majority of the hardware is arm and has no eufi

> Thanks,
> Florian
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

[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