On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 10:42:22AM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 7:46 PM Eduard Lucena <x3m...@fedoraproject.org> > wrote: > > > > Hello guys, > > > > As I did it in discussion.fp.o, I need to remind everyone that the latest > > update of Fedora Strategy [1] that one the objectives is to grow our users > > base, so potentially killing gaming goes directly against that strategy. > > "potentially killing gaming" is a pretty bold and broad statement that > I don't think you can actually back up.
Also 'grow our userbase' is not an absolute statement that stands alone. It is the strategy for how Fedora delivers on its vision / mission, building on the project's foundations. Some ways to grow our userbase will be aligned with Fedora's mission and some won't be aligned. We need to figure out where the balance between multiple competing factors lies. > > Being that said, I think all points discussed here are really interesting. > > I would love to be part of any sig trying to keep important things like > > gaming and recording/streaming (OBS) live in the distro, but instead of > > just dropping and then wait for people to react on that, the step should be > > done backwards, having a SIG taking care of things for 2 or 3 releases, and > > then dropping from the main build system. And also, we should involve the > > marketing team now, to mitigate the already coming press about it [2]. > > Having a dedicated i686 SIG was already tried back when it was > proposed to stop building kernel packages and installer images for > i686. > That SIG was formed and then basically never did anything. So I don't > think it's going to work the second time, either ... And this is the crux of the problem. This is one of the periodic unusual Fedora change proposals where not adopting it, is defacto making a concious decision to force volunteers maintainers to continue to work on something that many consider to be undesirable and a technological dead end. I very much doubt that pushing this down the road for another 2-4 releases will change the situation wrt steam requirements for i686. We'll just end up rehashing the same points and be no closer to a viable solution. IMHO we need some clear action to move us forward, rather than hoping that Valve suddenly decide to do something different after seemingly ignoring the problem for years. Fedora needs to control its own destiny. IMHO, ideally there would be a counter proposal put forward for F44 by those who want to invest in i686 and steam, outlining a strategy for how to support i686 without the current cross-distro & build infra maint burden it currently imposes, even on maintainers whose packages are not consumed by Steam. We don't neccessarily need to deliver a full solution for F44 but, IMHO, we need to at least make some step forward towards a solution that is more sustainable than the status-quo. With regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org 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@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
