On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 8:40 PM Peter Robinson <pbrobinson@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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? IIUC this wouldn't require maintaining a separate package, but just adding x86_64-v2 as a separate build *target* for the same package. Fabio -- _______________________________________________ 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
