On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 12:54 PM Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > This is an off-shoot thought of the 32-bit ARM conversation. Right now, we > build stuff like libreoffice for i686, but then (mostly) don't ship it. > This seems like a waste of resources and time. > > I know it's somewhat complicated (for example, there's actually a library > package in libreoffice, libreofficekit, so that gets plucked in to > multilib), and there's quite a lot to work out, but ... does this seem like > a good intended direction? Are you looking to save people resources or machine resources? If you're worried about people spending excessive amounts of time debugging and fixing i686 build failures, then your solution might not be a bad one. We wouldn't have to maintain an exception list as Florian implied. We'd just empower maintainers to disable i686 builds via ExcludeArch for leaf packages. That has potential to be disruptive to users, but there's no graceful path in stopping something. The largest concern would be if a maintainer did that for a non-leaf package, because that has implications for other maintainers. If things are mostly building fine and you're worried about storage or builder capacity, I'd ask if there are actual concerns or just a "this seems wasteful" perspective. If there is no inherent bottleneck or capacity limits we're pushing against, wasting a machine's time seems fine. It's why we invented them. If the cumulative effect there is that it's taking a LOT of resources even if there isn't a capacity problem, then scale can indeed be a concerning factor. In either case, it seems like what you're actually trying to calculate is cost/benefit ratio. I think we've long passed the time when i686 builds were worth it, but we keep doing it because we can think of cases where it might be useful. It's the same reason I have a cabinet full of DVDs but no functional DVD player and stream everything anyway. Maybe someday I'd want to watch a DVD? Might as well keep them. /me writes down "rip all my DVDs" on the todo list he'll never read again josh > One immediate way to do this is to start adding `ExcludeArch: i686` to > "leaf" packages (I mean: to allow / encourage people to do that). But I > don't want to add _more_ cruft to the standard minimal spec file, so this > seems like the wrong direction. And I still think we want to keep multilib > for compatibility (hello, old games!). Could we do something clever in koji > instead? > > > -- > Matthew Miller > <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Fedora Project Leader > _______________________________________________ > 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 > Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure _______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
