Re: 32-bit UEFI (was: Re: Validity of i686 as a release blocker)

On Sat, 2016-04-23 at 09:27 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > >> > >> Just to this point - if we wanted to support the Baytrail tablets > >> properly we should probably get 64-on-32 working. Allowing 32-bit > UEFI > >> installs probably isn't something we want to do officially. > > > > > > Has

Re: 32-bit UEFI (was: Re: Validity of i686 as a release blocker)

On Apr 23, 2016 09:18, "Florian Weimer" wrote: > > On 08/13/2015 03:17 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: >> >> On Tue, 2015-08-04 at 10:47 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 10:40:28AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: "Ambivalent" is probably

32-bit UEFI (was: Re: Validity of i686 as a release blocker)

On 08/13/2015 03:17 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Tue, 2015-08-04 at 10:47 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 10:40:28AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: "Ambivalent" is probably understated here. It's hard to imagine people securing i686 hardware these days to run a

Re: Validity of i686 as a release blocker

Am 15.08.2015 um 14:50 schrieb Matthew Miller: On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 06:47:44AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: Definitely. 10/15 years+ ago, [...] [...] Also, in those days, devs cared about efficiency. Nowadays, they don't care as much, People have been making this exact complaint since

Re: Validity of i686 as a release blocker

On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 06:47:44AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: Definitely. 10/15 years+ ago, [...] [...] Also, in those days, devs cared about efficiency. Nowadays, they don't care as much, People have been making this exact complaint since the 1970s. Probably before. -- Matthew Miller

Re: Validity of i686 as a release blocker

On 08/14/2015 12:00 PM, Richard Z wrote: I regularly use i686 and have not done a fresh install since years so would not detect this. Maybe fresh installs aren't such a deal for i686 users Well, from my experience, fresh installs on i686 are a major problem w/ Fedora, because Fedora's SW

Re: Validity of i686 as a release blocker

On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 09:47:27AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: In February[2] we sent out an email highlighting that the kernel team was not going to treat i686 bugs as a priority. Since that time, we have held true to our word and have not focused on fixing i686 bugs at all. It seems that the

Re: Validity of i686 as a release blocker

On Tue, 2015-08-04 at 10:47 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 10:40:28AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: Ambivalent is probably understated here. It's hard to imagine people securing i686 hardware these days to run a Workstation experience, after all. The question, I

Re: Validity of i686 as a release blocker

On 6 August 2015 at 10:04, Pete Travis li...@petetravis.com wrote: \ Perhaps the best approach, from a community perspective, would be to promote a spin to Edition status and recommend *that* for i686 or low resource desktop use cases. --Pete That would require people volunteering to

Re: Validity of i686 as a release blocker

On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 10:40:28 -0400, Paul W. Frields sticks...@gmail.com wrote: Ambivalent is probably understated here. It's hard to imagine people securing i686 hardware these days to run a Workstation experience, after all. I still use i686 for my primary server, primary desktop and

Re: Validity of i686 as a release blocker

On Aug 4, 2015 9:40 AM, Paul W. Frields sticks...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 09:47:27AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: [...snip...] Perhaps it is time that we evaluate where i686 stands in Fedora more closely. For a starting suggestion, I would recommend that we do not treat it

Re: Validity of i686 as a release blocker

On 08/04/2015 05:12 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote: Paul W. Frields (sticks...@gmail.com) said: Here's my perspective as an i686 Fedora user... I have a box (2009-ish) that's in use as a file/backup server. I have 3 i686 boxen. 2 are 2009-ish atom-netbook, one is a 2000-ish PIII-desktop. As

Re: Validity of i686 as a release blocker

On Tue, 2015-08-04 at 11:12 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: Here's my perspective as an i686 Fedora user... I have a box (2009-ish) that's in use as a file/backup server. As such, I don't spend a lot of time futzing with it - it doesn't run rawhide, it rarely runs the prereleases until

Re: Validity of i686 as a release blocker

On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 09:47:27AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: [...snip...] Perhaps it is time that we evaluate where i686 stands in Fedora more closely. For a starting suggestion, I would recommend that we do not treat it as a release blocking architecture. This is not the same as demotion to

Re: Validity of i686 as a release blocker

On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 10:40:28AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: Ambivalent is probably understated here. It's hard to imagine people securing i686 hardware these days to run a Workstation experience, after all. The question, I think, is how much we want to prioritize the Workstation

Re: Validity of i686 as a release blocker

Paul W. Frields (sticks...@gmail.com) said: On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 09:47:27AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: [...snip...] Perhaps it is time that we evaluate where i686 stands in Fedora more closely. For a starting suggestion, I would recommend that we do not treat it as a release blocking

Re: Validity of i686 as a release blocker

Perhaps it is time that we evaluate where i686 stands in Fedora more closely. For a starting suggestion, I would recommend that we do not treat it as a release blocking architecture. This is not the same as demotion to secondary architecture status. That has broader implications in

Re: Validity of i686 as a release blocker

On 08/04/2015 08:38 AM, Peter Robinson wrote: A lot of the users of i686 that I know use it from live images or installing live images which, and I've not followed the issue too closely so might be a little off here, wouldn't have hit the bug that was being seen by the installer side of things.