Re: [arch-dev-public] Shadowing i686, round 1 (arch-dev-public Digest, Vol 119, Issue 8)

On 2017-01-07 00:39, Connor Behan via arch-dev-public wrote: > What I want to verify is that the change you're pushing is the minimal > possible change to dbscripts, ABS and devtools per Florian's request, > right? For example, it's fine to delete the *-i686-build symlinks. But > archbuild should

Re: [arch-dev-public] Shadowing i686, round 1

On 06/01/17 07:08, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote: > Friendly reminder what I'm going to push through if nobody opposes. Can we have a detailed discussion what EOL for i686 means? I have seen a couple of proposals being: 1) We just kill i686 (as in stop distributing packages), or 2) Reduce i686 to

Re: [arch-dev-public] Shadowing i686, round 1 (arch-dev-public Digest, Vol 119, Issue 8)

On 05/01/17 04:08 PM, Bart?omiej Piotrowski wrote: > On 2016-12-28 20:52, Bart?omiej Piotrowski wrote: >> On 2016-12-12 21:51, Bart?omiej Piotrowski wrote: >>> Let's see where we end up this time. >> Round 2. It is apparent that majority of packagers participating in >> discussion are for or not

Re: [arch-dev-public] Shadowing i686, round 1

On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 10:08:31PM +0100, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote: > On 2016-12-28 20:52, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote: > > On 2016-12-12 21:51, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote: > >> Let's see where we end up this time. > > > > Round 2. It is apparent that majority of packagers participating in >

Re: [arch-dev-public] Shadowing i686, round 1

On 2016-12-28 20:52, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote: > On 2016-12-12 21:51, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote: >> Let's see where we end up this time. > > Round 2. It is apparent that majority of packagers participating in > discussion are for or not strongly against dropping i686. > > I guess no time

Re: [arch-dev-public] Shadowing i686, round 1

On 2016-12-12 21:51, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote: > Let's see where we end up this time. Round 2. It is apparent that majority of packagers participating in discussion are for or not strongly against dropping i686. I guess no time frame will be good enough for some people, but I don't want to

Re: [arch-dev-public] Shadowing i686, round 1

Bartłomiej Piotrowski schrieb am Mo., 12. Dez. 2016 um 21:51 Uhr: > > I'd like to set a certain date of dropping i686 completely. During that > time, community and/or interested packagers could come up with either > automated build solution, making it "tier 2"

Re: [arch-dev-public] Shadowing i686, round 1

On 12/12/16 21:51, Gaetan Bisson wrote: > [2016-12-12 21:51:31 +0100] Bartłomiej Piotrowski: >> In September we discussed upgrading the default -march value for >> packages to include SSE2 (and possibly more instructions). I think the >> general consensus was that we don't agree what we should do

Re: [arch-dev-public] Shadowing i686, round 1

On 2016-12-13 14:15, Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public wrote: > If we drop it, I'd just like to keep the possibility of us supporting > different architectures. I believe there was interest in merging ARM > support with our packages, but I don't know the state of that. If there > is no second

Re: [arch-dev-public] Shadowing i686, round 1

Giancarlo Razzolini schreef op 2016-12-14 14:47: Em dezembro 13, 2016 19:02 Jan Alexander Steffens via arch-dev-public escreveu: A bit +1 from me for dropping i686 sooner rather than later. The less I have to care about it the better. +1 about dropping i686 support entirely. Even though

Re: [arch-dev-public] Shadowing i686, round 1

Em dezembro 13, 2016 19:02 Jan Alexander Steffens via arch-dev-public escreveu: A bit +1 from me for dropping i686 sooner rather than later. The less I have to care about it the better. +1 about dropping i686 support entirely. Even though you can find working i686 hardware, specially on

Re: [arch-dev-public] Shadowing i686, round 1

On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 20:04:44 +0100 Balló György via arch-dev-public wrote: > Because I still use an i686-only system occasionally, and I prefer to > keep old hardware working with my favourite distribution. I agree that > building packages manually for a small

Re: [arch-dev-public] Shadowing i686, round 1

On 14/12/16 08:05, NicoHood wrote: > On 12/13/2016 08:04 PM, Balló György via arch-dev-public wrote: >> 2016. 12. 13, kedd keltezéssel 12.29-kor Doug Newgard ezt írta: >>> On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 19:16:53 +0100 >>> Balló György via arch-dev-public >>> wrote: >>>

Re: [arch-dev-public] Shadowing i686, round 1

On 12/13/2016 08:04 PM, Balló György via arch-dev-public wrote: > 2016. 12. 13, kedd keltezéssel 12.29-kor Doug Newgard ezt írta: >> On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 19:16:53 +0100 >> Balló György via arch-dev-public >> wrote: >> >>> -1 for dropping i686 completely. >>> >>> +1

Re: [arch-dev-public] Shadowing i686, round 1

On Mon, Dec 12, 2016 at 9:51 PM Bartłomiej Piotrowski < bpiotrow...@archlinux.org> wrote: > In September we discussed upgrading the default -march value for > packages to include SSE2 (and possibly more instructions). I think the > general consensus was that we don't agree what we should do and

Re: [arch-dev-public] Shadowing i686, round 1

2016. 12. 13, kedd keltezéssel 12.29-kor Doug Newgard ezt írta: > On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 19:16:53 +0100 > Balló György via arch-dev-public > wrote: > > > -1 for dropping i686 completely. > > > > +1 for introducing automated builds, even if it's less secure. > > > >

Re: [arch-dev-public] Shadowing i686, round 1

On Tue, 13 Dec 2016 19:16:53 +0100 Balló György via arch-dev-public wrote: > -1 for dropping i686 completely. > > +1 for introducing automated builds, even if it's less secure. > > I would like to keep i686 supported, and willing to do anything that is > needed

Re: [arch-dev-public] Shadowing i686, round 1

-1 for dropping i686 completely. +1 for introducing automated builds, even if it's less secure. I would like to keep i686 supported, and willing to do anything that is needed to setup and maintain an official automated build server for i686 packages (and possibly for other architectures). --

Re: [arch-dev-public] Shadowing i686, round 1

Am Mon, 12 Dec 2016 21:51:31 +0100 schrieb Bartłomiej Piotrowski : > I'd like to set a certain date of dropping i686 completely. During > that time, community and/or interested packagers could come up with > either automated build solution, making it "tier 2"

Re: [arch-dev-public] Shadowing i686, round 1

On 13/12/16 23:15, Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public wrote: > I still have two media players that run i686, but I can switch those to > a different distro if necessary although I'd obviously prefer not having > to do that. Count that as a -0.25. I have one webserver running i686. My vote counts

Re: [arch-dev-public] Shadowing i686, round 1

I still have two media players that run i686, but I can switch those to a different distro if necessary although I'd obviously prefer not having to do that. Count that as a -0.25. If we drop it, I'd just like to keep the possibility of us supporting different architectures. I believe there was

Re: [arch-dev-public] Shadowing i686, round 1

On 2016-12-13 12:05, NicoHood wrote: > I agree to get rid of i686. However I want to refer to the discussion > about stronger hashes in PKGBUILDs. If we use an automatic build > solution that builds the packages for 32bit, we need to make sure that > we have gpg signed sources or strong hashes. >

Re: [arch-dev-public] Shadowing i686, round 1

On 12/12/2016 10:02 PM, Jelle van der Waa wrote: > On 12/12/16 at 09:51pm, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote: >> against that architecture. No, I don't do even smoke tests – I assume >> that i686 works if x86_64 does. (Don't beat me up too hard for that.) > > I know for sure that you are not the only

Re: [arch-dev-public] Shadowing i686, round 1

+1 here as well. I don't test i686 either and I already have a few packages (emulation related) that are x86_64 only, either because they won't build on i686 without some fixes, or because upstream flat out dropped support for it. Cheers, December 13, 2016 10:31 AM, "Allan McRae"

Re: [arch-dev-public] Shadowing i686, round 1

On 13/12/16 19:20, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote: > On 2016-12-12 22:02, Jelle van der Waa wrote: >> I'm in favor of an auto build solution, since this has multiple >> bonusses. We could extend the auto build solution for reproducible >> builds (yay!). Auto rebuilds and maybe later when vendors get

Re: [arch-dev-public] Shadowing i686, round 1

On 2016-12-13 08:53, Sébastien Luttringer wrote: > On Mon, 2016-12-12 at 21:51 +0100, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote: >> I'd like to set a certain date of dropping i686 completely. > +1 > > What's the round 2? > > Cheers, > Sketching the execution plan and how big time window is reasonable to

Re: [arch-dev-public] Shadowing i686, round 1

On 2016-12-12 22:02, Jelle van der Waa wrote: > I'm in favor of an auto build solution, since this has multiple > bonusses. We could extend the auto build solution for reproducible > builds (yay!). Auto rebuilds and maybe later when vendors get their act > togehter (aarch64 *cough*). Creating a

Re: [arch-dev-public] Shadowing i686, round 1

Hi, I have no i686 around here anymore since more than a year. If there is no real need for it anymore we should stop supporting it. greetings tpowa 2016-12-13 1:51 GMT+01:00 Gaetan Bisson : > [2016-12-12 21:51:31 +0100] Bartłomiej Piotrowski: > > In September we discussed

Re: [arch-dev-public] Shadowing i686, round 1

[2016-12-12 21:51:31 +0100] Bartłomiej Piotrowski: > In September we discussed upgrading the default -march value for > packages to include SSE2 (and possibly more instructions). I think the > general consensus was that we don't agree what we should do and we just > left the problem intact. > >

Re: [arch-dev-public] Shadowing i686, round 1

On 12/12/16 at 09:51pm, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote: > against that architecture. No, I don't do even smoke tests – I assume > that i686 works if x86_64 does. (Don't beat me up too hard for that.) I know for sure that you are not the only one :) > I'd like to set a certain date of dropping i686