>>>>> 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.) >>> >> >> Here is a graph for just Fedora OS from time immemorial of Fedora >> using a 7 day moving average. >> >> https://smooge.fedorapeople.org/simple_stats/fedora-hardware-full-ma.png >> >> I hope this is helpful.. [I am working on ways to make this available >> regularly but am up to my neck in spam accounts so don;'t expect >> soon.] > > That doesn't seem to distinguish between "ppc" and "ppc64" at first > glance, which I would think we'd want it to. Particularly since "ppc" > isn't a thing that has existed in installable form for a while now. We haven't built ppc (ie the 32 bit variant) since Fedora 20 so for the recent history of Fedora with editions it's also irrelevant. > Further, it doesn't distinguish between "ppc64" and "ppc64p7", which > are actually separate architectures in the koji sense. Yes, but they're not distributed as a separate repo over all and it's a handful of packages that are built as ppc64p7 (currently 19) and we're working to kill it off entirely. > I realize the lines might be virtually invisible on the graph with a > further breakdown, but I'm curious if the statistics themselves are > being gathered properly there. > > josh > -- > devel mailing list > devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
