Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?

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

 



On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 13:32 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2017-07-12 at 13:44 +0000, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
> > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 08:44:02AM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 01:20:58PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> > > > > The fact that i686 kernels continue to work in general is basically luck.
> > > > 
> > > > You probably will deny this, but in practice it has been so for many
> > > > years, because the i686 has dropped out of RHAT's business interest.
> > > 
> > > I don't think this is unreasonable. It is easy for us to support
> > > architectures that a company is paying people to support. It is hard
> > > for us to support architectures that are not getting that that kind of
> > > support. As noted in this thread, this isn't just Red Hat -- it is true
> > > of upstream i686 as well. No one is really interested in this. I
> > > guarantee you that if some non-Red Hat person showed up and said "Hey,
> > > I'm here to work on i686 N hours per week", we would say "awesome", not
> > > "Red Hat doesn't care".
> > 
> > Would it be possible to make this a Prioritized Bug?
> > It seems to be a classic case of "affects a lot of people, nobody seems
> > to want to take interest".
> 
> It's not a question of a single specific bug, though. It's a question
> of having someone or a group of someones interesting in the *ongoing
> requirement* for making sure i686 still works.
> 
> To give an example outside of the kernel, the installer 'Reclaim Space'
> function has been broken on i686 for about 10 months, and no-one seems
> to be lining up to fix that one either:
> 
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1375732

To make an implicit point explicit: if this bug had affected, say, ARM,
or PPC, or s390, I would've known exactly who to CC and say 'hey look,
here's a bug specific to the arch you care about'. That's the value of
those arch SIGs/WGs (I forget what we call things). There is no i686
WG/SIG, no more informal but well-known 'group of people who care about
and help fix i686 bugs', so I can't do it for that bug.
-- 
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@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