Well, next to a source tarball, .rpm and .deb packages are products of the currently documented release process; I stashed my work on a potential first RC here which has the 64 bits versions: https://www.modpagespeed.com/release_archive/1.14.36.1-incubator-RC0/
I'll continue following the release process later this week, after doing some further manual sanity checks on the source tarball. Otto On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 3:17 AM Nick Kew <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 2 Dec 2018, at 19:45, Otto van der Schaaf <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Hi all, > > > > I'm working on producing artifacts for a first incubator release > candidate, > > and I am reminded by the process that producing 32 bits artifacts takes a > > lot > > of time and effort compared to the 64 bits ones (about 90:10 this time). > > Is there something 64-bit-specific about the code? > > > (and if someone really wants it: building from source on > > an actual 32 bits > > system is a fairly smooth process). > > Then I'd guess not. > > > So I wonder: should we stop releasing for 32-bits systems? > > Any thoughts? > > If you're talking binaries, Apache doesn't release binaries of anything. > A project may offer binaries, but those would be unofficial. > Our downstream packagers - e.g. Linux distros or commercial vendors - > typically build binaries for their users. > > If what you're asking is whether it should be marked as > untested/unsupported > on 32-bit, I have no view one way or the other, provided any non-support > is clearly documented. > > -- > Nick Kew >
