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

2016-04-23 Thread Adam Williamson
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 t

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

2016-04-23 Thread Stephen John Smoogen
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 understated here. It's hard

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

2016-04-23 Thread Florian Weimer
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 Workstation