On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 12:46:00PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > 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? No, that is not included. This is only what clients are sending as arch in the mirrorlist/metalink request. Usually: arch=$basearch Adrian -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
