Once upon a time, Stephen Smoogen <ssmoogen@xxxxxxxxxx> said: > I don't think Peter meant additional packages since with the i686 it > didn't mean that. What it did mean was having to understand why two > architectures might do things differently and why bugs might show up > in one but not another. In the i686 days, that was essentially THE second architecture for the bulk of packagers. Now we have Fedora on multiple really separate architectures, I don't feel the difference between x86_64-v1 and -v2 is such a big deal (as compared to x86_64 vs. aarch64 for example). I'm not saying there's not a potential for issues exclusive to one x86_64 level, but it seems like a small area in comparison. I think this needs to be decided for Fedora as soon as practical; while it'd be nice to keep the baseline at -v1 (I'd still like to see some more concrete "these CPU models are -v1" list), I also would prefer optimum performance e.g. from my VMs (and everything I have is at least -v2, most are -v3, and one is -v4). Even just bumping the baseline to -v2 won't enable some useful things like AVX2, so I think it makes sense to look more at enabling a multi-level approach (e.g. like the i386/i686 days with targeted packages built for multiple). -- Chris Adams <linux@xxxxxxxxxxx> -- _______________________________________________ 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
