Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 11:09 AM Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 6:05 PM Richard Shaw wrote: > > (snip) > > > I'll add some context to these. I'm currently the primary maintainer of > three major projects in the VFX stack, OpenImageIO, OpenColorIO, and > OpenEXR. Do we really

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 3/11/22 13:33, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 8:07 PM Bruno Wolff III wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 12:23:41 -0600, >> Bruno Wolff III wrote: >>> On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 09:06:01 -0600, >>> >>> The Fedora 36 beta is likely to slip because firefox was not building >>>

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 5:51 PM Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: (snip) > I don't see the opt-out as being "simple" at all, as IIUC all it would take is > one maintainer not paying close enough attention to reverse dependencies to > break the i686 buildroot. Not to mention that it ends up polluting the

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 8:07 PM Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 12:23:41 -0600, > Bruno Wolff III wrote: > >On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 09:06:01 -0600, > > > >The Fedora 36 beta is likely to slip because firefox was not building > >successfully on i686, but was on other arches. >

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Fri, 2022-03-11 at 15:31 +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 8:41 AM Leigh Scott wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 2022-03-07 at 12:12 -0500, Ben Cotton wrote: > > > > > > Why isn't this as simple as: > > > > > > 1) Create an f37-multilib-build build tag with all supported arches

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 8:41 AM Leigh Scott wrote: > > > On Mon, 2022-03-07 at 12:12 -0500, Ben Cotton wrote: > > > > Why isn't this as simple as: > > > > 1) Create an f37-multilib-build build tag with all supported arches + i686, > > and an f37-multilib{,-candidate} build targets to use it (with

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

> On Mon, 2022-03-07 at 12:12 -0500, Ben Cotton wrote: > > Why isn't this as simple as: > > 1) Create an f37-multilib-build build tag with all supported arches + i686, > and an f37-multilib{,-candidate} build targets to use it (with destination tag > of f37-updates-candidate); > > 2) Drop i686

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, 2022-03-07 at 12:12 -0500, Ben Cotton wrote: > == Detailed Description == > > Fedora does no longer ship any deliverables for i686, not even RPM > repositories for i686 are published any longer. The kernel package > itself also [[Changes/Stop Building i686 Kernels|dropped support for >

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 09:06:01AM -0600, Chris Adams wrote: > So I guess this is the part I don't really understand (and I guess why I > don't see this proposal as a "win") - how is i686 painful to package > maintainers for non-delivered packages? Maybe I'm just missing > something, but what

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 9:07 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: Thanks for your feedback! > The word "encourage" is rather weird here. I am not a native speaker, but that > sound to me like we are agitating for active removals. Like we go to the > packagers and ask them: Could oyu please drop i686 from

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 09. 03. 22 18:05, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 5:55 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: (...) OK then, I can +1 that, but please: Make that more obvious in the proposal. Honest question: How do I do that? Do you have a suggestion? > Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 06:05:06PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 5:55 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > (...) > > > OK then, I can +1 that, but please: Make that more obvious in the proposal. > > Honest question: How do I do that? Do you have a suggestion? Drop this part:

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 19:58:30 -, Leigh Scott wrote: On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 09:06:01 -0600, Chris Adams That is a very poor excuse for a slip, why would any one need it? That is specified in the release criteria. I believe the rational is covered there if you are really

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

> On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 09:06:01 -0600, > Chris Adams > The Fedora 36 beta is likely to slip because firefox was not building > successfully on i686, but was on other arches. That is a very poor excuse for a slip, why would any one need it? Why not add an ExcludeArch to fix?

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 12:23:41 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote: On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 09:06:01 -0600, The Fedora 36 beta is likely to slip because firefox was not building successfully on i686, but was on other arches. It is actually more complicated than I remembered. Firefox needed a

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 09:06:01 -0600, Chris Adams wrote: So I guess this is the part I don't really understand (and I guess why I don't see this proposal as a "win") - how is i686 painful to package maintainers for non-delivered packages? Maybe I'm just missing something, but what causes

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 04:28:58PM -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > On 3/8/22 4:08 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > Perhaps you could share with the list how used/important wine.i686 is > > these days? Are most folks still using it? Slowly switching to > > wine.x86_64? > > Yes, wine.i686 is still

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 6:05 PM Richard Shaw wrote: (snip) > I'll add some context to these. I'm currently the primary maintainer of three > major projects in the VFX stack, OpenImageIO, OpenColorIO, and OpenEXR. Do we > really need i686/arm packages for these? No one is using the 32bit

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 5:55 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: (...) > OK then, I can +1 that, but please: Make that more obvious in the proposal. Honest question: How do I do that? Do you have a suggestion? The proposal already does not contain anything language that could be interpreted as "this will

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 10:09 AM Ben Beasley wrote: > The packaging effort is real; it’s just unevenly distributed across > different types of packages, so some packagers might not have noticed it. > > Packaging work that, with the demise of 32-bit ARM, can now be ascribed > purely to these

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 09. 03. 22 15:51, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 9:57 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: (snip) I think we are all misinterpreting the intention of this change proposal. We are suggesting better ways to get rid of i686. And the arguments are valid. However, I now think that this

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

The packaging effort is real; it’s just unevenly distributed across different types of packages, so some packagers might not have noticed it. Packaging work that, with the demise of 32-bit ARM, can now be ascribed purely to these generally-unused i686 packages includes: - As Fabio noted,

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 4:06 PM Chris Adams wrote: > > Once upon a time, Fabio Valentini said: > > Package maintainers who would benefit from dropping i686 from their > > packages probably already know that i686 is painful for them. > > So I guess this is the part I don't really understand (and I

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Once upon a time, Fabio Valentini said: > Package maintainers who would benefit from dropping i686 from their > packages probably already know that i686 is painful for them. So I guess this is the part I don't really understand (and I guess why I don't see this proposal as a "win") - how is i686

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 9:57 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: (snip) > I think we are all misinterpreting the intention of this change proposal. > > We are suggesting better ways to get rid of i686. And the arguments are valid. > However, I now think that this change proposal was not proposed to get rid

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tuesday, 08 March 2022 at 23:08, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 03:54:25PM -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > > On 3/7/22 2:03 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > A simpler solution would be to just default-off i686 and check-in some > > > marker file that indicates the package needs to

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 3:09 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > Perhaps you could share with the list how used/important wine.i686 is > these days? Are most folks still using it? Slowly switching to > wine.x86_64? I use 32-bit wine at work a *lot*, due to 3rd parties who still, in 2022, ship their

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 4:47 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 12:45:36PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Mon, 2022-03-07 at 11:25 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > So, I'll go ahead and be a bad guy here: > > > > > > Perhaps it's time to just retire i686 completely? > > > > > >

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 3/8/22 4:08 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: Perhaps you could share with the list how used/important wine.i686 is these days? Are most folks still using it? Slowly switching to wine.x86_64? Yes, wine.i686 is still important in the year 2022. While I don't have a comprehensive list of all use cases

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 03:54:25PM -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > On 3/7/22 2:03 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > > A simpler solution would be to just default-off i686 and check-in some > > marker file that indicates the package needs to be built for multilib. > > This is how openSUSE does it today

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 01:55:47PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote: > > Rather than churn 20,000+ packages (plus add a new requirement for every > new package to include an ExcludeArch), why not address this at the > build system? > > Writing a script to generate a list of the buildroot plus multilib >

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 12:45:36PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2022-03-07 at 11:25 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > So, I'll go ahead and be a bad guy here: > > > > Perhaps it's time to just retire i686 completely? > > > > Steam is available as a flatpak > > Do we know how the flatpak

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Once upon a time, Miro Hrončok said: > Give maintainers a blanket approval to exclude i686 if it bothers > them in any way and their package is a leaf i686 package. That is > it. Will this speed up eventual i686 retirement? Possibly, but not > much. But that is not the goal. The goal is to

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 07. 03. 22 20:14, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 07. 03. 22 19:30, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 7:22 PM Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Ben Cotton said: == Summary == Package maintainers are encouraged to actively stop building their packages for i686, especially if

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 08. 03. 22 21:43, Matthew Miller wrote: On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 02:11:14PM -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote: Rather than churn 20,000+ packages (plus add a new requirement for every new package to include an ExcludeArch), why not address this at the build system? This makes sense to me. I

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 02:11:14PM -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > >Rather than churn 20,000+ packages (plus add a new requirement for every > >new package to include an ExcludeArch), why not address this at the build > >system? > > This makes sense to me. I don't think we should be changing

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 8 2022 at 01:55:47 PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote: Rather than churn 20,000+ packages (plus add a new requirement for every new package to include an ExcludeArch), why not address this at the build system? This makes sense to me. I don't think we should be changing spec files to

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Once upon a time, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek said: > What about the following instead: > - We start with a filter list that includes glibc, wine, and other > packages which we know should be excluded. > > - The script is run automatically and identifies a list of leaf packages. > > - For

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 12:12:49PM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval > == Scope == > > * Proposal owners: > > Proposal owners will provide convenience scripts for checking whether > a given package is a leaf package on i686, and will help

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 04:56:43PM +0100, Michal Schorm wrote: > Small technical concern: > > i686 packages depending on each other as follows: > A ---> B ---> C ---> D ---> E ---> F ---> G > When a maintainer of package "D" decides to stop building the package > "D" for i686 ("ExcludeArch:

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 15:04:21 -0500, Robbie Harwood wrote: Fabio Valentini writes: For example, as far as I know, you need the 32-bit host libraries for running 32-bit Windows applications in Wine. Dropping that would make our Wine packages almost useless, since a large fraction of

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 03:01:32PM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Mon, 2022-03-07 at 20:32 +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 8:25 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > > > > So, I'll go ahead and be a bad guy here: > > > > > > Perhaps it's time to just retire i686 completely? > > >

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Small technical concern: i686 packages depending on each other as follows: A ---> B ---> C ---> D ---> E ---> F ---> G When a maintainer of package "D" decides to stop building the package "D" for i686 ("ExcludeArch: %{ix86}"), how do we ensure the packages "E", "F", "G" will also adopt the

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 15:46:29 +0100 Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 2:05 PM Chris Adams wrote: > > > > Once upon a time, Fabio Valentini said: > > > One of the most problematic things are transitive BuildRequires: > > > Even if you know you need to keep libfoo.i686 and

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 2:05 PM Chris Adams wrote: > > Once upon a time, Fabio Valentini said: > > One of the most problematic things are transitive BuildRequires: > > Even if you know you need to keep libfoo.i686 and libbar.i686, how do > > you determine the transitive dependencies that are

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Once upon a time, Fabio Valentini said: > One of the most problematic things are transitive BuildRequires: > Even if you know you need to keep libfoo.i686 and libbar.i686, how do > you determine the transitive dependencies that are needed to keep > those packages around? > And by that, I don't

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 07/03/2022 18:12, Ben Cotton wrote: Package maintainers are encouraged to actively stop building their packages for i686, especially if supporting this architecture requires significant investment of time or resources, for no benefit. +1. Upstreams don't test i686 builds and ignore bugs.

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 07/03/2022 20:25, Kevin Fenzi wrote: Steam is available as a flatpak Steam Flatpak works too bad nowadays due to different DRM and pressure-vessel. Flatpak maintainers need to use hacks like sandbox disabling. -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 11:17:20 +0100 Dan Horák wrote: > On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 09:40:16 + > Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 10:30:33AM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 10:14 AM Daniel P. Berrangé > > > wrote: > > > > > > (...) > > > > > > >

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 09:40:16 + Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 10:30:33AM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 10:14 AM Daniel P. Berrangé > > wrote: > > > > (...) > > > > > Isn't that just a standard RPM dep solving problem, at least for > > >

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 10:40 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: (...) > Oh yes, I simplified the build deps problem too much. Still > feels like a task that is ripe for machine automation. Yes. I will provide a script so package maintainers can do: $ can-i-add-excludearch-i686-to foo Which will

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 10:30:33AM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 10:14 AM Daniel P. Berrangé > wrote: > > (...) > > > Isn't that just a standard RPM dep solving problem, at least for > > stuff inside Fedora repos or well known 3rd party add-on repos ? > > It is not.

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 10:14 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: (...) > Isn't that just a standard RPM dep solving problem, at least for > stuff inside Fedora repos or well known 3rd party add-on repos ? It is not. There's no way to query recursive BuildRequires from repository metadata in one step

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

* Daniel P. Berrangé: > Isn't that just a standard RPM dep solving problem, at least for > stuff inside Fedora repos or well known 3rd party add-on repos ? The dependencies stored in the source RPM headers are architecture-specific. We'd have to rebuild source RPMs on i686 to get the correct

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Il 07/03/22 19:30, Fabio Valentini ha scritto: > On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 7:22 PM Chris Adams wrote: >> Once upon a time, Ben Cotton said: >>> == Summary == >>> >>> Package maintainers are encouraged to actively stop building their >>> packages for i686, especially if supporting this architecture

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 09:59:07AM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 9:11 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > > (...) > > > How many examples of things like Wine & Steam do we actually have ? > > I feel it must be a pretty small list of things which are important > > to a

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 9:11 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > (...) > How many examples of things like Wine & Steam do we actually have ? > I feel it must be a pretty small list of things which are important > to a large number of users and yet need 32-bit. > > If we only consider Wine & Steam, we

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 9:09 AM Petr Pisar wrote: > (...) > Do you know that Packaging Guidelines require for each of this exclusion > creating a tracking bug for the affected package in Bugzilla > ? > > We

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 08:32:13PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 8:25 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > > So, I'll go ahead and be a bad guy here: > > > > Perhaps it's time to just retire i686 completely? > > > > Steam is available as a flatpak, and old software thats 32bit

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

V Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 07:30:44PM +0100, Fabio Valentini napsal(a): > On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 7:22 PM Chris Adams wrote: > > > > Once upon a time, Ben Cotton said: > > > == Summary == > > > > > > Package maintainers are encouraged to actively stop building their > > > packages for i686,

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 3/7/22 2:03 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: A simpler solution would be to just default-off i686 and check-in some marker file that indicates the package needs to be built for multilib. This is how openSUSE does it today with the baselibs.conf file:

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Neal Gompa writes: > On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 3:05 PM Robbie Harwood wrote: >> >> Fabio Valentini writes: >> >> > For example, as far as I know, you need the 32-bit host libraries for >> > running 32-bit Windows applications in Wine. Dropping that would make >> > our Wine packages almost

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 3:46 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Mon, 2022-03-07 at 11:25 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > So, I'll go ahead and be a bad guy here: > > > > Perhaps it's time to just retire i686 completely? > > > > Steam is available as a flatpak > > Do we know how the flatpak is built

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, 2022-03-07 at 11:25 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > So, I'll go ahead and be a bad guy here: > > Perhaps it's time to just retire i686 completely? > > Steam is available as a flatpak Do we know how the flatpak is built and updated? Would Fedora ending i686 support affect *that* work? --

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 3:05 PM Robbie Harwood wrote: > > Fabio Valentini writes: > > > For example, as far as I know, you need the 32-bit host libraries for > > running 32-bit Windows applications in Wine. Dropping that would make > > our Wine packages almost useless, since a large fraction of

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Fabio Valentini writes: > For example, as far as I know, you need the 32-bit host libraries for > running 32-bit Windows applications in Wine. Dropping that would make > our Wine packages almost useless, since a large fraction of Windows > software still isn't 64-bit. Would it be possible to

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 2:15 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 07. 03. 22 19:30, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 7:22 PM Chris Adams wrote: > >> > >> Once upon a time, Ben Cotton said: > >>> == Summary == > >>> > >>> Package maintainers are encouraged to actively stop building

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, 2022-03-07 at 20:32 +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 8:25 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > > So, I'll go ahead and be a bad guy here: > > > > Perhaps it's time to just retire i686 completely? > > > > Steam is available as a flatpak, and old software thats 32bit only

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 8:15 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > Thanks for your feedback, I'll respond inline. > > This begs several questions that would probably need to be clarified e.g. in > the packaging guidelines. For example: > > -- > > I am adding a brand new package to multiple Fedora

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 07. 03. 22 20:25, Kevin Fenzi wrote: So, I'll go ahead and be a bad guy here: Perhaps it's time to just retire i686 completely? Steam is available as a flatpak, and old software thats 32bit only and can't be rebuilt could just be run from a f36 container? This would save us: * all the

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 8:25 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > So, I'll go ahead and be a bad guy here: > > Perhaps it's time to just retire i686 completely? > > Steam is available as a flatpak, and old software thats 32bit only and > can't be rebuilt could just be run from a f36 container? > > This would

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

So, I'll go ahead and be a bad guy here: Perhaps it's time to just retire i686 completely? Steam is available as a flatpak, and old software thats 32bit only and can't be rebuilt could just be run from a f36 container? This would save us: * all the builder resources * all the multilib

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 07. 03. 22 19:30, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 7:22 PM Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Ben Cotton said: == Summary == Package maintainers are encouraged to actively stop building their packages for i686, especially if supporting this architecture requires

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Once upon a time, Fabio Valentini said: > As far as I can tell, any approach more sophisticated than that (like > automatically determining the i686 packages we *need*) would require > significantly more work, and probably be more error-prone, introduce > more friction, and make it harder to

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 7:22 PM Chris Adams wrote: > > Once upon a time, Ben Cotton said: > > == Summary == > > > > Package maintainers are encouraged to actively stop building their > > packages for i686, especially if supporting this architecture requires > > significant investment of time or

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Once upon a time, Ben Cotton said: > == Summary == > > Package maintainers are encouraged to actively stop building their > packages for i686, especially if supporting this architecture requires > significant investment of time or resources, for no benefit. This will > not apply to packages

F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval == Summary == Package maintainers are encouraged to actively stop building their packages for i686, especially if supporting this architecture requires significant investment of time or resources, for no benefit. This will not apply

F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval == Summary == Package maintainers are encouraged to actively stop building their packages for i686, especially if supporting this architecture requires significant investment of time or resources, for no benefit. This will not apply