On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:24 AM, Hans de Goede <hdegoede@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > On 12-07-17 14:40, Matthew Miller wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 01:43:53PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >>> >>> If cost is an issue, consider to drop all these ppc, arm, s370 and >>> mips targets. >>> >>> Their user base is like magnitudes smaller than the i686 user base, >>> while these target are having a significant impact (and thus cost) >>> on everything in Fedora. >> >> >> Ralf, you know how this works: Fedora is made up of people, and >> therefore Fedora does what people show up to do. People are showing up >> to work on those other architectures, even though they are niche, and >> *no one* is showing up for i686. > > > That is not true. Let me quote my reply to Josh on this: > > """ > >> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2015-February/208368.html > > Which is yet another generic, non specific call for help. Which > unsurprisingly (given its unspecificness) did probably not get > a lot of response. > > What would be helpful is a concrete list of things people who > care about i686 can work about. For example an i686 kernel tracker > bug + link to that on the https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Kernel > page. > > I believe that something among the lines of: "we need help, but we > are not really specifying what, still please do something" is not > going to get you a lot of help. > > OTOH "here is a prioritized list of TODO items, if all of the > high prio items have not been solved before $date, then we are > going to have to drop ia32 support from F28" OTOH will likely > be much more effective IMHO. This will cut 2 ways: > 1) It will likely get the kernel team more help > 2) If the kernel team does not get help, or not enough, then > you have a strong argument that not enough people care about > ia32 bit support and it should be dropped > > """ > > I believe there are 2 problems here: > > 1) i686 support is limping on in a state where it more or less > still just works, so there are no itches to scratch and thus no > volunteers That seems accurate, except for the bugs that the kernel team did fix along the way for whatever reason. > 2) There have been some requests of help, but they have IMHO > not been specific enough. A request for help should really be > seen as sort of a bug report and just like "the program does > not work" or "the program is broken" are not useful bug reports > "we need help" is not a useful request for help. This is not accurate. As I said in my other reply, the kernel team isn't asking for help with i686. It simply isn't a priority at all. Also, in the context of overall i686 HW support, it is worth pointing out that none of the Editions has a 32-bit release blocking artifact. Most of them don't care about 32-bit installs either, with some of them not even having them produced. josh _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
