Can we maybe not restart this entire debate? i686 in Fedora has run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible. Whether we think that was the correct decision or not, there is absolutely no point in rehashing all the original arguments, let alone in a thread about BIOS support. Christopher On 03.07.20 08:14, John M. Harris Jr wrote: > On Thursday, July 2, 2020 4:06:55 PM MST Alexander Ploumistos wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 3, 2020 at 12:49 AM John M. Harris Jr <johnmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> None of the linked blockers are core packages, and some of them are >>> outright not designed to work on anything other than 64 bit. I really >>> don't understand how you can see that as justification. >> >> Even though both trackers still receive reports, many packagers just >> stopped bothering with i686, because there was little response and >> there were long-lasting breakages in rawhide. A distro arch is more >> than the kernel; what good is having a 32-bit kernel and nothing to >> run on it? See how many i686 bugs are closed as WONTFIX or >> INSUFFICIENT_DATA. > > There's more to core packages than just the kernel. There were no bugs in the > default install of Fedora Server or Fedora KDE Spin or GNOME Spin. > _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
