On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 4:39 PM Richard W.M. Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > An i686 build found a 32 bit assumption in my code last week. This > happens from time to time and I think it's still useful. So even > though I don't think any of my packages are relevant on i686, for me > it's worth keeping (some of) them alive.
I see the same sentiment in the s390x discussions, and I'm simply not convinced it's worth doing just for the sake of doing it. But that's better left for an entirely different mail thread. > Having said that I obviously have no objection if a packger wishes to > drop i686 builds from their own package. I can imagine having a single list of "package: maintainer [, maintainer, ...]" format that keeps track of packages and packagers who want to keep it building for i686 for any reason, and "steam: FESCo" could be the first entry. The list, and its dependencies would then be protected against i686 removal; at least from this particular effort. That way we could move forward with removing unwanted i686 packages and deal with this list later in the process. Would that work for you? Michal -- Michal Schorm Senior Software Engineer Databases Team Red Hat -- On Mon, Jul 20, 2026 at 4:39 PM Richard W.M. Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 18, 2026 at 12:32:14AM +0200, Michal Schorm wrote: > > For those interested in this topic, I compiled a set of packages that > > exactly: > > builds i686 && all binary RPMs are buildroot-only && leaf && NOT on > > FESCo "protected" list > > > > https://mschorm.fedorapeople.org/ARCHIVE/i686-removal/koji-only-leaf-i686_2026-07-18.txt > > > > If my method and understanding are both correct, we could add > > 'ExcludeArch: %{ix86}' to each of these 3,400 packages with zero > > impact on the rest of the packages and save some resources. > > > > What do you think? > > An i686 build found a 32 bit assumption in my code last week. This > happens from time to time and I think it's still useful. So even > though I don't think any of my packages are relevant on i686, for me > it's worth keeping (some of) them alive. > > Having said that I obviously have no objection if a packger wishes to > drop i686 builds from their own package. > > Rich. > > -- > Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones > Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com > virt-p2v converts physical machines to virtual machines. Boot with a > live CD or over the network (PXE) and turn machines into KVM guests. > http://libguestfs.org/virt-v2v > > -- > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > 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/[email protected] > Do not reply to spam, report it: > https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new -- _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] 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/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://forge.fedoraproject.org/infra/tickets/issues/new
