On Wed, 19 Jun 2024 at 19:13, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <dominik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wednesday, 19 June 2024 at 17:17, drago01 wrote: > > [...] at some point we need to do the cut and not being held back by old > > / ancient hardware forever. > > What do you mean by "being held back"? What's being prevented by not > requiring x86-64-v2 for all packages while allowing few select ones to > have higher arch requirements? And why do "we need to"? > > As Neal said, rpm allows building for target x86_64_v2, so... let's do > that for those packages that require it? That may mean having two versions of the same package, one built against v1 and one v2, you're then doubling the workload for a whole lot of contributors for the sake of old hardware. We had the same discussions on i686 and the first few times it was proposed it didn't get traction, but it eventually did. There was a i686 SIG which ultimately went nowhere. To put this a different way, would you be prepared to do the work to maintain the old v1 packages if maintainers don't want to maintain 2 versions? Peter -- _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
