On 9/9/19 1:47 PM, John M. Harris Jr. wrote:
> ASLR has nothing to do with the wild claims made in that email, that having
> an
> x86 system will somehow taint or 'infect' other systems. Additionally, you
> don't need to run a 64 bit system to get ASLR.
i686 app has only 4 GB of virtual
On Monday, September 9, 2019 4:43:18 AM MST Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> On 9/9/19 11:52 AM, John M. Harris Jr. wrote:
>
> > That's now how vulnerabilities work, and just being 64 bit doesn't solve
> > any security issue.
>
>
>
On 9/9/19 11:52 AM, John M. Harris Jr. wrote:
> That's now how vulnerabilities work, and just being 64 bit doesn't solve any
> security issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Address_space_layout_randomization
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 02:52:43AM -0700, John M. Harris Jr. wrote:
> While I don't have statistics on that, all of the anecdotal evidence supports
> that vendors are still "supporting" 32 bit software. In fact, nearly all
> proprietary software for RHEL, for example, is 32 bit.
The EDA tools
On Sunday, September 8, 2019 9:06:43 PM MST Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 11:44 PM John M. Harris Jr.
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sunday, September 8, 2019 7:05:39 PM MST Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 7:00 AM vvs vvs wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
>
On Sun, 2019-09-08 at 20:35 -0700, John M. Harris Jr. wrote:
>
> Wait, what happened to x86 becoming a secondary architecture? You know, there
> are vendors that still create and sell x86 systems today.
That already happened several releases ago. But secondary arches
failing blocks package
On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 11:44 PM John M. Harris Jr. wrote:
>
> On Sunday, September 8, 2019 7:05:39 PM MST Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 7:00 AM vvs vvs wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > I'm sorry, but where did you saw that I said something about i686
> > > *kernel*? I think
On Sunday, September 8, 2019 7:05:39 PM MST Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 7:00 AM vvs vvs wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > I'm sorry, but where did you saw that I said something about i686
> > *kernel*? I think that I explicitly mentioned *x86_64* kernel with i686
> > userland and
On Sunday, September 8, 2019 3:57:22 AM MST vvs vvs wrote:
> I'm sorry, but where did you saw that I said something about i686 *kernel*?
> I think that I explicitly mentioned *x86_64* kernel with i686 userland and
> described why it could be beneficial for some users with limited memory.
> As
On Sunday, September 8, 2019 1:50:17 AM MST vvs vvs wrote:
> That's nice to know Fedora's developers point of view on that subject. But
> I'm not subscribing to that view. I'm with Richard Stallman. And now I
> clearly see why he is opposed to OSS paradigm. Looks like I was in a wrong
> place for
On Saturday, September 7, 2019 11:44:59 AM MST Victor V. Shkamerda wrote:
> I totally agree with that view. Making such decisions without public
> discussion is not respecting user's freedom of choice. And this list
> doesn't count as a public discussion. Nobody will know about it outside a
> very
On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 7:00 AM vvs vvs wrote:
>
> I'm sorry, but where did you saw that I said something about i686 *kernel*? I
> think that I explicitly mentioned *x86_64* kernel with i686 userland and
> described why it could be beneficial for some users with limited memory.
And a child with
On Sun, Sep 8, 2019 at 7:00 AM vvs vvs wrote:
>
> I'm sorry, but where did you saw that I said something about i686 *kernel*? I
> think that I explicitly mentioned *x86_64* kernel with i686 userland and
> described why it could be beneficial for some users with limited memory.
>
> As for
On 9/8/19 3:57 AM, vvs vvs wrote:
Other distributions might drop it or not, we'll see. At least Debian is not
dropping it yet. But this is a moot point now. After all those discussions I
see that nobody really cares about user interests here. At least in Debian's
case they stated that their
I'm sorry, but where did you saw that I said something about i686 *kernel*? I
think that I explicitly mentioned *x86_64* kernel with i686 userland and
described why it could be beneficial for some users with limited memory.
As for security, I don't think that running your own computer in a
On 9/7/19 8:44 PM, Victor V. Shkamerda wrote:
> There are reasons why using x86_64 kernel with i686 userland might be a
> better option.
Because i686 has tons of unresolved bugs: it has no upstream support, no
maintainers and even testers with real hardware.
Do **YOU** want to be a i686-arch
That's nice to know Fedora's developers point of view on that subject. But I'm
not subscribing to that view. I'm with Richard Stallman. And now I clearly see
why he is opposed to OSS paradigm. Looks like I was in a wrong place for all
these years. Time to move elsewhere.
On Sat, 2019-09-07 at 18:44 +, Victor V. Shkamerda wrote:
> And of course there is still an option to switch to another OS. Do I
> need to remind that Linux and Red Hat were not created just to
> replace some other OS, but to respect freedom of choice? What
> happened that this is not even
I totally agree with that view. Making such decisions without public discussion
is not respecting user's freedom of choice. And this list doesn't count as a
public discussion. Nobody will know about it outside a very closed circle. If
you don't know exact numbers or reasons why people still use
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Noi686Repositories
(Ben is on vacation, so I announcing this on his behalf.)
== Summary ==
Stop producing and distributing the Modular and Everything i686 repositories.
== Owner ==
* Name: Kevin Fenzi
* Email: ke...@scrye.com
== Current status ==
*
On Tue, 16 Jul 2019 at 14:23, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > I am not looking for users to join this list. I am looking for the
> > developers who are saying we can't drop x86_32 to go there to help
> > diagnose and fix things. Currently there is an x86_32 problem with
On 7/15/19 12:35 AM, Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote:
> It would be much clearer and user-friendly to move I*86 packages out of the
> 64 bit repos and make the i*86 an optional add-on
Well, the problem there would be that many folks wouldn't know to enable
that seperate repo for multilib, so
On 7/15/19 3:15 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Miro Hrončok wrote:
>> With the dropping of the i686 kernel package it's no longer possible to
>> directly install Fedora 31 or later on i686 hardware, however, it is still
>> possibly to upgrade older releases as long as we continue to provide a
>>
On 7/15/19 3:11 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> I just don't think the number of people who do local i686 builds is all
>> that large, so it having some issues and corner cases to help out the
>> vast majority of folks seems like a good trade off to me.
>
> Removing something does
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> I am not looking for users to join this list. I am looking for the
> developers who are saying we can't drop x86_32 to go there to help
> diagnose and fix things. Currently there is an x86_32 problem with cpio
> and booting:
>
>
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 22:00, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 7/15/19 1:51 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > OK could all the people who are so interested in i686 get onto the
> > x86_32 mailing list and chime up there about what they are wanting to
> > do? Also start having regular sig meetings and
Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 7:22 PM Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Not really. It would break the legacy "install all packages as multilib
>> if available" mode, which has not been the default modus operandi of YUM
>> for years now. Does DNF even support this mode? (That mode would break
* Kevin Fenzi:
>> I also think all architectures should behave consistently in mock. It's
>> odd that after the proposed change, only on i686, mock will be affected
>> by buildroot overrides in the default configuration, for instance.
>
> Also true.
>
> I just don't think the number of people
On 7/15/19 1:51 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
OK could all the people who are so interested in i686 get onto the
x86_32 mailing list and chime up there about what they are wanting to
do? Also start having regular sig meetings and other things which have
been pretty dead for about a year?
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 7:22 PM Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote:
>
> > It would be much clearer and user-friendly to move I*86 packages out of
> > the 64 bit repos and make the i*86 an optional add-on
>
> +1 to that suggestion.
>
>
> Vitaly Zaitsev via devel replied:
>
> >
Nicolas Mailhot via devel wrote:
> It would be much clearer and user-friendly to move I*86 packages out of
> the 64 bit repos and make the i*86 an optional add-on
+1 to that suggestion.
Vitaly Zaitsev via devel replied:
> It will break multilib.
Not really. It would break the legacy "install
Miro Hrončok wrote:
> With the dropping of the i686 kernel package it's no longer possible to
> directly install Fedora 31 or later on i686 hardware, however, it is still
> possibly to upgrade older releases as long as we continue to provide a
> repository. This will leave those users with an old
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> I just don't think the number of people who do local i686 builds is all
> that large, so it having some issues and corner cases to help out the
> vast majority of folks seems like a good trade off to me.
Removing something does not "help out" anybody, ever. The people who'd
On 15/07/2019 18:05, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
So, this is how it works (as far as I recall off the top of my head):
You build a archfull package in koji. It's built for x86_64 and i686
(and the other arches).
pungi runs to compose things. It has a config (in pungi-fedora or bodhi
config) that tells
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 16:07, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 2:53 PM Fabio Valentini
> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 19:33 Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >>
> >> On 7/15/19 5:43 AM, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> >>
> >> > (I for one am still semi-regularly building stuff in the mock
> >>
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 2:53 PM Fabio Valentini wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 19:33 Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>>
>> On 7/15/19 5:43 AM, Fabio Valentini wrote:
>>
>> > (I for one am still semi-regularly building stuff in the mock
>> > fedora-rawhide-i686 chroots, especially for testing if things
On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 14:53, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 19:33 Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
>> On 7/15/19 5:43 AM, Fabio Valentini wrote:
>>
>> > (I for one am still semi-regularly building stuff in the mock
>> > fedora-rawhide-i686 chroots, especially for testing if things still
>>
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019, 19:33 Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On 7/15/19 5:43 AM, Fabio Valentini wrote:
>
> > (I for one am still semi-regularly building stuff in the mock
> > fedora-rawhide-i686 chroots, especially for testing if things still
> > work on 32bit systems (be it armv7hl or i686) - I know that
On 7/15/19 8:08 AM, Tom Hughes wrote:
> On 15/07/2019 15:56, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 11:52:50AM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
>>> Could you explain a bit more how this (keeps) working? I think my
>>> mental model of how Fedora repositories work in the case of
On 7/15/19 5:43 AM, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> (I for one am still semi-regularly building stuff in the mock
> fedora-rawhide-i686 chroots, especially for testing if things still
> work on 32bit systems (be it armv7hl or i686) - I know that this will
> probably continue to work somehow, but making
On 7/14/19 11:46 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Miro Hrončok:
>
>> The only other use/need for the repostories is to allow maintainers to
>> debug and test fixes for multilib shipped packages, but the koji
>> buildroot repo can be used for this use case.
>
>> ** modify mock to use the koji
On 15/07/2019 15:56, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 11:52:50AM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
Could you explain a bit more how this (keeps) working? I think my
mental model of how Fedora repositories work in the case of multilib
devel packages is a bit flawed. At first
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 11:52:50AM +0200, Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Could you explain a bit more how this (keeps) working? I think my
> mental model of how Fedora repositories work in the case of multilib
> devel packages is a bit flawed. At first I assumed that this suggestion
> would kill that.
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 at 18:16, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 5:21 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >
> > On 7/14/19 1:15 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> >
> > > This will also make it impossible for people to locally do multilib
> > > build/installs. It will remove COPR’s ability to do the same.
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 12:45 PM Jiri Vanek wrote:
>
> On 7/15/19 11:34 AM, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > Hello, Dridi Boukelmoune.
> >
> > Mon, 15 Jul 2019 08:26:59 + you wrote:
> >
> >> Emulate as in not run natively even though the hardware might be able to?
> >
> > Sorry for
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 11:58 AM Jiri Vanek wrote:
> On 7/15/19 11:34 AM, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> > Hello, Dridi Boukelmoune.
> >
> > Mon, 15 Jul 2019 08:26:59 + you wrote:
> >
> >> Emulate as in not run natively even though the hardware might be able
> to?
> >
> > Sorry for
On 7/15/19 11:34 AM, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> Hello, Dridi Boukelmoune.
>
> Mon, 15 Jul 2019 08:26:59 + you wrote:
>
>> Emulate as in not run natively even though the hardware might be able to?
>
> Sorry for misinformation. Wine64 is still require 32-bit libraries in
> order to run
Hi Kevin,
On Sun, 2019-07-14 at 15:50 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On 7/14/19 2:35 PM, John Reiser wrote:
> > Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > > Neal Gompa wrote:
> >
> > [[snip]]
> >
> > > > This will also make it impossible for people to locally do multilib
> > > > build/installs. It will remove COPR’s
Hello, Dridi Boukelmoune.
Mon, 15 Jul 2019 08:26:59 + you wrote:
> Emulate as in not run natively even though the hardware might be able to?
Sorry for misinformation. Wine64 is still require 32-bit libraries in
order to run legacy 32-bit Windows PE executables.
On Mon, Jul 15, 2019 at 7:58 AM Vitaly Zaitsev via devel
wrote:
>
> Hello, Dridi Boukelmoune.
>
> Mon, 15 Jul 2019 06:59:33 + you wrote:
>
> > game that cannot move to 64bit support because it's dragging binaries
> > for which it doesn't have source code.
>
> Wine64 can still emulate 32-bit
Hello, Nicolas Mailhot via devel.
Mon, 15 Jul 2019 07:35:09 + you wrote:
> It would be much clearer and user-friendly to move I*86 packages out of the
> 64 bit repos and make the i*86 an optional add-on
It will break multilib.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
It would be much clearer and user-friendly to move I*86 packages out of the 64
bit repos and make the i*86 an optional add-on
Le July 14, 2019 9:27:03 PM UTC, Neal Gompa a écrit :
>On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 5:21 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>>
>> On 7/14/19 1:15 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
>>
>> > This will
Hello, Jiri Vanek.
Mon, 15 Jul 2019 09:22:57 +0200 you wrote:
> That is not enough. See what hapened to Ubuntu once they dropped i686
They decided to remove whole 32-bit support, including multilib support.
We need to drop 32-bit packages, except needed to run Steam and Wine32.
Third-party
On 7/15/19 9:10 AM, Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> Hello, Dridi Boukelmoune.
>
> Mon, 15 Jul 2019 06:59:33 + you wrote:
>
>> game that cannot move to 64bit support because it's dragging binaries
>> for which it doesn't have source code.
>
> Wine64 can still emulate 32-bit WinPE
Hello, John Reiser.
Sun, 14 Jul 2019 14:35:46 -0700 you wrote:
> For some apps 2GB of malloc() arena is plenty, and they run faster
> in 32-bit mode because a 64-byte cache line contains 16 pointers
> instead of only 8.
And such applications became extremely vulnerable due to missing ASLR
Hello, Neal Gompa.
Sun, 14 Jul 2019 17:27:03 -0400 you wrote:
> Building library packages and making your own multilib repo is
> impossible without having both the i686 repo and the x86_64 repo, as
> you need to build for both and then munge them together for a multilib
> repo.
Most of Fedora
Hello, Dridi Boukelmoune.
Mon, 15 Jul 2019 06:59:33 + you wrote:
> game that cannot move to 64bit support because it's dragging binaries
> for which it doesn't have source code.
Wine64 can still emulate 32-bit WinPE executables.
--
Sincerely,
Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)
> I don't think we can drop multilib until at least steam/wine are ready
> for it at least.
Will they ever be though? Thanks to Wine I can run an open source
game that cannot move to 64bit support because it's dragging binaries
for which it doesn't have source code. I reverse-engineered one of
* Miro Hrončok:
> The only other use/need for the repostories is to allow maintainers to
> debug and test fixes for multilib shipped packages, but the koji
> buildroot repo can be used for this use case.
> ** modify mock to use the koji buildroot for i686 for f31+ for those
> few users that need
On 7/14/19 2:35 PM, John Reiser wrote:
> Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> [[snip]]
>
>>> This will also make it impossible for people to locally do multilib
>>> build/installs. It will remove COPR’s ability to do the same. For that
>>> reason alone, I don’t particularly want this
On 7/14/19 2:27 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> Building library packages and making your own multilib repo is
> impossible without having both the i686 repo and the x86_64 repo, as
> you need to build for both and then munge them together for a multilib
> repo.
Sure. Do many people do that anymore?
>
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Neal Gompa wrote:
[[snip]]
This will also make it impossible for people to locally do multilib
build/installs. It will remove COPR’s ability to do the same. For that
reason alone, I don’t particularly want this change to happen.
Can you expand on what you mean by
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 5:21 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> On 7/14/19 1:15 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> > This will also make it impossible for people to locally do multilib
> > build/installs. It will remove COPR’s ability to do the same. For that
> > reason alone, I don’t particularly want this change
On 7/14/19 1:15 PM, Neal Gompa wrote:
> This will also make it impossible for people to locally do multilib
> build/installs. It will remove COPR’s ability to do the same. For that
> reason alone, I don’t particularly want this change to happen.
Can you expand on what you mean by 'locally do' ?
On Sun, Jul 14, 2019 at 4:10 PM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Noi686Repositories
>
> (Ben is on vacation, so I announcing this on his behalf.)
>
> == Summary ==
>
> Stop producing and distributing the Modular and Everything i686 repositories.
>
> == Owner ==
>
> *
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Noi686Repositories
(Ben is on vacation, so I announcing this on his behalf.)
== Summary ==
Stop producing and distributing the Modular and Everything i686 repositories.
== Owner ==
* Name: Kevin Fenzi
* Email: ke...@scrye.com
== Current status ==
*
101 - 166 of 166 matches
Mail list logo
