On 07/05/2016 11:09 AM, Adrian Reber wrote:
On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 10:04:03AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote:
On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Richard W.M. Jones <rjones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Timely article in the Register today:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/05/linux_letting_go_32bit_builds_on_the_way_out/
I've been thinking about this as i686 is so often broken that I've now
stopped bothering to test it in the libguestfs tests that I do on
Rawhide:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/libguestfs.git/commit/?id=aa63cef2d7679e1906551ef4e46c2e9a8861b56c
If you need to run an i686 virtual machine based on Rawhide, my
experience is that it's more likely than not that it won't boot, and
no one cares.
Do we have stats for the relative proportion of i686 vs x86-64 downloads?
No really because of mirrors etc, but mirror manager stats from Feb
(FPL DevConf talk) list i686 as around 20% unique IP hits, that
doesn't take into account proxies/NAT using same IP etc.
What clients are requesting from MirrorManager can also be seen here:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mirrormanager/statistics/2016-07-05/archs
These statistics do not cover package downloads of i686 packages which
are part of the x86_64 repositories, do they?
I think the numbers are also skewed by the fact that EPEL 7 is not
available for i686, which is not of direct relevance to Fedora. (The
reason why it's missing is not lack of demand, but lack of a publicly
available build root for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 on i686.)
Florian
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
