On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 20:10, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > What do you mean by breaking breaking because you use that term like a
> > sledge hammer for anything from a 'pixel off' bug to 'too old software
> > is in repos', 'too young software is in repos' , 'software is
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> What do you mean by breaking breaking because you use that term like a
> sledge hammer for anything from a 'pixel off' bug to 'too old software
> is in repos', 'too young software is in repos' , 'software is not in
> repos' to 'can't boot'. After a while, I assumed
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 at 05:50, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>
> Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > OK at the moment it looks like we seem to average 311,000 ip addresses
> > per day doing a daily checkin for Fedora. Out of those ~13,400 are
> > x86_32. The majority of the x86_32 are pre-F28 with only about
Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> OK at the moment it looks like we seem to average 311,000 ip addresses
> per day doing a daily checkin for Fedora. Out of those ~13,400 are
> x86_32. The majority of the x86_32 are pre-F28 with only about 3400
> (about 14% of total x86_32 and ~1% of all Fedora users)
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 12:43, Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
>
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 04:49:08PM -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> > Perhaps the same reason that many people still run i686 based hardware, and
> > will be unable to use Fedora after the release of F31: Why fix what isn't
> > broken?
>
On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 9:42:57 AM MST Richard W.M. Jones wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 04:49:08PM -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
>
> > Perhaps the same reason that many people still run i686 based hardware,
> > and will be unable to use Fedora after the release of F31: Why fix what
>
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 04:49:08PM -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote:
> Perhaps the same reason that many people still run i686 based hardware, and
> will be unable to use Fedora after the release of F31: Why fix what isn't
> broken?
But the question is: Are they running qemu on this hardware?
On Friday, September 27, 2019 8:01:42 AM MST Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 10:53:32AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 8:30 AM Daniel P. Berrangé
> > wrote:
>
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 01:26:09PM +0200, Jun Aruga wrote:
> > >
> > > >
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 10:53:32AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 8:30 AM Daniel P. Berrangé
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 01:26:09PM +0200, Jun Aruga wrote:
> > > > Does anyone know of, or have, any critical/important use cases that
> > > > would
> > > be
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 8:30 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 01:26:09PM +0200, Jun Aruga wrote:
> > > Does anyone know of, or have, any critical/important use cases that would
> > be disrupted by QEMU dropping 32-bit *host* support ? If so, let me know
> > here & I can
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 01:26:09PM +0200, Jun Aruga wrote:
> > Does anyone know of, or have, any critical/important use cases that would
> be disrupted by QEMU dropping 32-bit *host* support ? If so, let me know
> here & I can forward feedback on. Or feel free to go direct to QEMU thread
>
> For example, how about releasing compat-qemu50 RPM if upstream will
> drop armv7 on qemu 6.x?
> It's like compat-openssl10 RPM for openssl (version 1.1) RPM.
>
> Maybe if some RPM packages need armv7 support, they can use
> compat-qemu50 conditionally in the spec file.
Sorry. Typo.
> Does anyone know of, or have, any critical/important use cases that would
be disrupted by QEMU dropping 32-bit *host* support ? If so, let me know
here & I can forward feedback on. Or feel free to go direct to QEMU thread
upstream.
I am not a real user of ARM 32-bit. I just checked information
The upstream QEMU community is raising the possibility of deprecating,
and subsequently deleting, support for running emulation guests on
32-bit *hosts*. Running 32-bit guests would *not* be affected.
See this thread:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-09/msg06168.html
IOW, if
14 matches
Mail list logo
