On Friday, September 13, 2019 1:57:05 AM MST Panu Matilainen wrote:
> On 9/13/19 1:38 AM, vvs vvs wrote:
>
> > But there should be some reason for that lack of interested volunteers in
> > Fedora. Right now I'm looking at stats for other distributions which are
> > not going to drop i686 any time
Hello Nicolas,
On Fri, Sep 13, 2019 at 10:51 AM Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
> Well... I don't qualify as a person with much free time but...
>
> I'm toying with kernel-longterm in a copr for .4.19 branch, and I've
> enabled i686 there.
> The rebuilt is a semi-automated way.
> This i686 build is
Le ven. 13 sept. 2019 à 11:44, Dridi Boukelmoune
a écrit :
>
> > Maybe in other distros, people interested in i686 support actually do
> > something about it instead of talking and talking and talking about it
> > on mailing lists?
>
> Maybe someone with so much free time on their hands could
> Maybe in other distros, people interested in i686 support actually do
> something about it instead of talking and talking and talking about it
> on mailing lists?
Maybe someone with so much free time on their hands could maintain
such a kernel in Fedora by applying downstream packages of such a
On 9/13/19 1:38 AM, vvs vvs wrote:
But there should be some reason for that lack of interested volunteers in
Fedora. Right now I'm looking at stats for other distributions which are not
going to drop i686 any time soon, e.g. Debian, NixOS, Gentoo. There must me
some very fundamental
But there should be some reason for that lack of interested volunteers in
Fedora. Right now I'm looking at stats for other distributions which are not
going to drop i686 any time soon, e.g. Debian, NixOS, Gentoo. There must me
some very fundamental difference with how they operate. Of course
> On 11 Sep 2019, at 21:03, vvs vvs wrote:
>
> Yes, that's understandable. But this is beating of a dead horse.
>
> But what matters now is that by doing some small investigation i686 users can
> still get support for their bugs which are common for both platforms. This
> doesn't require any
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 3:23:29 PM CEST Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Dne 09. 09. 19 v 21:01 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
> > The koji buildroot repo will continue to be available if you want to
> > copy something, but as far as work to be done to move back to
> > distributing a i686 set of trees? I
Yes, that's understandable. But this is beating of a dead horse.
But what matters now is that by doing some small investigation i686 users can
still get support for their bugs which are common for both platforms. This
doesn't require any formalities like SIG or commitments which they can't make
On 11 Sep 2019, at 16:12, vvs vvs wrote:
>
> Even better. That means that you can still get support for x86 but it will
> require some more work on the user's side. They should just check if that bug
> is indeed i686 specific.
>
> I believe that all that argument for the lats three days was
I did test some of these desktops in the past. From my experience LXDT should
be just fine. Anyway, thanks for reminding me, because I was so used to
standard Fedora desktop that completely forgot about such alternatives.
___
devel mailing list --
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 15:41:14 -0400
Przemek Klosowski via devel wrote:
> Wait---so you are using 32-bit Gnome on a 64-bit capable CPU running
> 64-bit kernel? If the reason is to save 200MB of memory, you should
> definitely try one of the memory-thrifty desktop environments like
> xfce.
>
>
> We need to drop 32-bit packages, except needed to run Steam and Wine32.
Why should I bother helping to keep steam alive?, perhaps the gamers should
allocate some of their gaming time to keeping i686 alive.
___
devel mailing list --
Even better. That means that you can still get support for x86 but it will
require some more work on the user's side. They should just check if that bug
is indeed i686 specific.
I believe that all that argument for the lats three days was completely
unnecessary and should be blamed on an
And even that might not be necessary at all because most bugs are common
between 32 and 64-bit. Honestly, I don't think such SIG was really needed after
all.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 11:28:13PM -, vvs vvs wrote:
> But that's actually the same that I was trying to say. Meeting that
> activity statistics is the essence of such formal group. But grass-roots
> enthusiasts don't have such commitments. They can do some work
> occasionally if time allows
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 2:51 AM John M. Harris Jr. wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 12:28:31 AM MST Samuel Sieb wrote:
> > On 9/10/19 11:01 PM, John M. Harris Jr. wrote:
> >
> > > On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 9:54:50 AM MST Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > >
> > >> Sure there are... from the
On 9/11/19 12:50 AM, John M. Harris Jr. wrote:
On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 12:28:31 AM MST Samuel Sieb wrote:
It's not incorrect. Almost all x86 hardware is 64-bit capable,
therefore building a 32-bit is of very limited use. It is not easy to
find 32-bit only CPUs now. Yes, I know some
On Wednesday, September 11, 2019 12:28:31 AM MST Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 9/10/19 11:01 PM, John M. Harris Jr. wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 9:54:50 AM MST Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> >
> >> Sure there are... from the change page:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "The i686 kernel is of limited use as
On 9/10/19 11:01 PM, John M. Harris Jr. wrote:
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 9:54:50 AM MST Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Sure there are... from the change page:
"The i686 kernel is of limited use as most x86 hardware supports 64bit
these days. It has been in a status of "community supported" for
On 9/10/19 4:28 PM, vvs vvs wrote:
But that's actually the same that I was trying to say. Meeting that activity
statistics is the essence of such formal group. But grass-roots enthusiasts
don't have such commitments. They can do some work occasionally if time allows
but there is no strict
On 9/10/19 11:48 PM, drago01 wrote:
On Wednesday, September 11, 2019, John M. Harris Jr.
mailto:joh...@splentity.com>> wrote:
Compiling his app as 32 bit would require 32 bit repositories for the
libraries he plans on linking.
Multilib is still supported so libraries are present in the
On Wednesday, September 11, 2019, John M. Harris Jr.
wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 12:41:14 PM MST Przemek Klosowski via devel
> wrote:
> > On 9/10/19 7:55 AM, vvs vvs wrote:
> >
> > > Did I? I thought that I've said that I'm using x86_64 kernel right now
> and
> > > that I have my
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 12:41:14 PM MST Przemek Klosowski via devel
wrote:
> On 9/10/19 7:55 AM, vvs vvs wrote:
>
> > Did I? I thought that I've said that I'm using x86_64 kernel right now and
> > that I have my memory stretched to the limits already.
>
> >
> >
> > But yes, I've
On Tuesday, September 10, 2019 9:54:50 AM MST Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On 9/9/19 9:34 PM, John M. Harris Jr. wrote:
> > There's no reason to drop x86 kernel builds either.
>
> Sure there are... from the change page:
>
> "The i686 kernel is of limited use as most x86 hardware supports 64bit
> these
But that's actually the same that I was trying to say. Meeting that activity
statistics is the essence of such formal group. But grass-roots enthusiasts
don't have such commitments. They can do some work occasionally if time allows
but there is no strict agenda. This contradicts those
* vvs vvs [10/09/2019 21:07] :
>
> I suppose that SIG is a much formal entity than just a bunch of
> individuals performing some non-regular activities.
The PHP SIG is barely more than one person, the Perl SIG has no regular
meeting and the mailing list activity is not representative of the work
Yes, I've already answered that. It's surely possible, but my experience shows
that putting too much efforts in a too broad customization doesn't pay off in
the end. Every time you'll upgrade to a new version it breaks.
As for using another desktop, I should seriously consider it. Probably I
No, of course I didn't mean that it was some random developer's fault. By "the
project" I definitely meant PR and HR in a broad sense. Expecting such casual
participants like me to self-organize is a wild idea. Even placing some
advertisement on Fedora's landing page would be a big help.
I
On 9/10/19 7:55 AM, vvs vvs wrote:
Did I? I thought that I've said that I'm using x86_64 kernel right now and that
I have my memory stretched to the limits already.
But yes, I've experimented with x86_64 userland some time ago, I don't remember
exact numbers but I think that I've lost 100-200
On 9/10/19 12:08 PM, vvs vvs wrote:
>> You are welcome to use the koji buildroot repo for that.
>> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/repos/f30-build/latest
>
> Thanks. That would be just splendid, but won't it cease to exist after Fedora
> 30 EOL? Then it's just a temporary workaround.
Yes,
> You are welcome to use the koji buildroot repo for that.
> https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/repos/f30-build/latest
Thanks. That would be just splendid, but won't it cease to exist after Fedora
30 EOL? Then it's just a temporary workaround.
___
* vvs vvs [10/09/2019 11:41] :
>
> And the primary reason why that SIG initiative never worked is that the
> project didn't put any significant efforts to make that happen.
I'm going to disagree with you here.
Back in 2017, we went through a very long discussion which lead to the
creation of the
On 9/9/19 2:15 PM, vvs vvs wrote:
> And why people are not reading all the answers? That was a rhethorical
> question.
>
> I said it already several times, that I don't need volunteers to fix things
> for me! I just need an already built repository which I could just use and
> fix things
On 9/9/19 9:34 PM, John M. Harris Jr. wrote:
>
> There's no reason to drop x86 kernel builds either.
Sure there are... from the change page:
"The i686 kernel is of limited use as most x86 hardware supports 64bit
these days. It has been in a status of "community supported" for several
Fedora
Dne 09. 09. 19 v 21:01 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
> The koji buildroot repo will continue to be available if you want to
> copy something, but as far as work to be done to move back to
> distributing a i686 set of trees? I guess doing the release blocking
> tests on i686 at Beta and Final might be a
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 08:00:52 -0400
Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 12:24 AM John M. Harris Jr.
> wrote:
> >
> > On Monday, September 9, 2019 10:29:23 AM MST Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 14:52:07 -,
> > > vvs vvs wrote:
> > >
> [...]
> >
>
On Tue, Sep 10, 2019 at 12:24 AM John M. Harris Jr.
wrote:
>
> On Monday, September 9, 2019 10:29:23 AM MST Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 14:52:07 -,
> > vvs vvs wrote:
> >
> > >May be there are more interested people that we know, but they are not
> > >reading that
Did I? I thought that I've said that I'm using x86_64 kernel right now and that
I have my memory stretched to the limits already.
But yes, I've experimented with x86_64 userland some time ago, I don't remember
exact numbers but I think that I've lost 100-200 MB of memory. And I have not
much
Thanks.
I wouldn't say there is a "hostility" here. It might be hubris at a time, but
mostly indifference. Though, that might frustrate anyone as well.
It's good to know that there are people like you here. But I'm afraid that the
cost of bureaucratic barriers is too high for any single
On Tuesday, 10 September 2019 at 06:46, John M. Harris Jr. wrote:
[...]
> While most users on Intel/AMD based systems are now running x64
> kernels,
I might agree with the above...
> most proprietary software released for various GNU/Linux distros are
> 32 bit.
... but not with this. Most of
> On 9/9/19 12:47 PM, vvs vvs wrote:
>
>
> Having read the thread, you seem to miss the point that's been
> repeatedly made: the packages occasionally fail to build, and someone
> has to fix them. That act, fixing packages when they don't build is the
> "support" that someone has to provide.
On Monday, September 9, 2019 12:44:42 PM MST DJ Delorie wrote:
> "vvs vvs" writes:
>
> > Ok, now I see that Fedora is just for activists. If I'm not one of
> > them then I don't deserve any possibility to use it and should blame
> > myself. Thanks for explaining it to me.
>
>
> I think you're
On Monday, September 9, 2019 1:00:51 PM MST Anderson, Charles R wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 07:57:20PM -, vvs vvs wrote:
>
> > Well, thanks for sharing.
> >
> > I'm not complaining that nobody wants to fix things for me. I'm
> > complaining because there is no possibility to fix things
On Monday, September 9, 2019 12:09:49 PM MST vvs vvs wrote:
> Ok, now I see that Fedora is just for activists. If I'm not one of them then
> I don't deserve any possibility to use it and should blame myself. Thanks
> for explaining it to me.
Please don't let the hostilities of this list get to
On Monday, September 9, 2019 11:58:08 AM MST vvs vvs wrote:
> I would argue that it might be difficult to distinguish work needed to find
> out if it was i686 specific when there already is similar bug on x86_64.
> Also, it's difficult to rate bug importance for most users. As I've already
> said
On Monday, September 9, 2019 8:36:45 AM MST vvs vvs wrote:
> There is no either right or wrong stance here. We are discussing possible
> alternatives to "just drop it" attitude.
> What work should be done? Please, be more specific. Right now I'm running a
> i686 userland and it works. If I would
On Monday, September 9, 2019 10:29:23 AM MST Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 14:52:07 -,
> vvs vvs wrote:
>
> >May be there are more interested people that we know, but they are not
> >reading that list. There will just be just every man for himself and
> >Fedora has
On Monday, September 9, 2019 6:42:35 AM MST Solomon Peachy wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 06:22:46AM -0700, John M. Harris Jr. wrote:
> > The system I'm sending this email from only has 4 GiB of memory in
> > total. Does that mean that this system makes ASLR completely
> > ineffective? Should
On 9/9/19 3:35 PM, vvs vvs wrote:
I didn't answered your other question because I've answered the same question
several times already. Yes, I have a use cases where I'll get a severe
performance hit if I was not careful. And this is related to available memory
and swapping. And I can't afford
On 9/9/19 3:35 PM, vvs vvs wrote:
> So, you are insisting that Koji just doesn't work without any assistance? And
> that it's impossible to build a separate i686 repository without affecting
> all others?
We used to build secondary architectures separately, using koji-shadow
to chase the
Oh, brother...
So, you are insisting that Koji just doesn't work without any assistance? And
that it's impossible to build a separate i686 repository without affecting all
others? And that you can't exclude that architecture for a specific package? If
that's the case then it's very different
On 9/9/19 2:15 PM, vvs vvs wrote:
I said it already several times, that I don't need volunteers to fix things for
me! I just need an already built repository which I could just use and fix
things myself if needed. But Fedora is refusing to provide such repository
which was built automatically
And if I don't use those packages, then why should I be unable to use
everything else just because there are some small problems? Especially because
there are not much users of that architecture anyway.
That happens all the time already and I see no big problem with that. If these
packages
And why people are not reading all the answers? That was a rhethorical question.
I said it already several times, that I don't need volunteers to fix things for
me! I just need an already built repository which I could just use and fix
things myself if needed. But Fedora is refusing to provide
And I thought that should be obvious, silly me. Just kidding.
Of course I would do it if there were no better choice. I'm just struggling to
find out if there is no other possibility whatsoever. There might be reasons
why Fedora is just unable to keep it updated that I don't know. And of course
On 9/9/19 12:47 PM, vvs vvs wrote:
I don't even know anyone whom I could address. I'm already spent too much time
on that list trying to convince everyone that I'm ready to take all the burden
of using unsupported packages, but was told that it's against Fedora policies.
What much could I do?
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 07:57:20PM -, vvs vvs wrote:
> Well, thanks for sharing.
>
> I'm not complaining that nobody wants to fix things for me. I'm complaining
> because there is no possibility to fix things myself. After removing i686
> repository I'm either should start building it
Well, thanks for sharing.
I'm not complaining that nobody wants to fix things for me. I'm complaining
because there is no possibility to fix things myself. After removing i686
repository I'm either should start building it myself or switch to another
distribution. I'm not trying to hurt
I don't even know anyone whom I could address. I'm already spent too much time
on that list trying to convince everyone that I'm ready to take all the burden
of using unsupported packages, but was told that it's against Fedora policies.
What much could I do?
As for using i686 userland just
"vvs vvs" writes:
> Ok, now I see that Fedora is just for activists. If I'm not one of
> them then I don't deserve any possibility to use it and should blame
> myself. Thanks for explaining it to me.
I think you're overreacting a bit, but there is some truth in this.
Fedora is created and
On 9/9/19 11:15 AM, vvs vvs wrote:
BTW, that just means that Fedora is refusing to provide much needed services
even to a people who are ready to accept most of that support burden themselves
and I'm one of them.
I don't understand how you keep completely missing the point. No one is
I don't have time to search for it right now, but there is a law which states
that no matter how much resources you already get they will be stretched thin
anyway.
I did upgrades many times but every time it was proved that it still wasn't
enough. It's a useless rat race. We have much more
On 9/9/19 11:47 AM, Martin Kolman wrote:
Yeah, I've recently switched an old Atom A330[0] based system[1] with 2 GB of
RAM (that's the maximum it supports)
from a 32-bit to a 64-bit based distro (after finding out it can actually run
64-bit code).
It has been running just fine and actually
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 19:01:59 -,
vvs vvs wrote:
No, I don't think so. I'm using some (non Fedora related) applications which
use every bit of available memory. It's a bit stressed just as it is, but
losing additional couple of megabytes for no useful reason will be too much a
hit.
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 07:09:49PM -, vvs vvs wrote:
> Ok, now I see that Fedora is just for activists. If I'm not one of
> them then I don't deserve any possibility to use it and should blame
> myself. Thanks for explaining it to me.
If I may quote from the landing page on
Ok, now I see that Fedora is just for activists. If I'm not one of them then I
don't deserve any possibility to use it and should blame myself. Thanks for
explaining it to me.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 07:01:59PM -, vvs vvs wrote:
> No, I don't think so. I'm using some (non Fedora related) applications
> which use every bit of available memory. It's a bit stressed just as
> it is, but losing additional couple of megabytes for no useful reason
> will be too much a
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 08:47:24PM +0200, Martin Kolman wrote:
> Yeah, I've recently switched an old Atom A330[0] based system[1] with
> 2 GB of RAM (that's the maximum it supports) from a 32-bit to a 64-bit
> based distro (after finding out it can actually run 64-bit code). It
> has been
In the interests of not making this thread a bunch longer, I am just
going to answer a number of things here in one place.
On 9/7/19 11:44 AM, Victor V. Shkamerda wrote:
> I totally agree with that view. Making such decisions without public
> discussion is not respecting user's freedom of
No, I don't think so. I'm using some (non Fedora related) applications which
use every bit of available memory. It's a bit stressed just as it is, but
losing additional couple of megabytes for no useful reason will be too much a
hit. And I can't change their code, because that codebase is big
I would argue that it might be difficult to distinguish work needed to find out
if it was i686 specific when there already is similar bug on x86_64. Also, it's
difficult to rate bug importance for most users. As I've already said that I
was completely satisfied with the status quo and it was a
On Mon, 2019-09-09 at 13:27 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 18:06:02 -,
> vvs vvs wrote:
> > Yes, thanks. Sadly, I see that I have no choice but to switch to another
> > distribution even though I'm using 64-bit
> > CPU. It's just that the memory can't be upgraded
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 06:23:18PM -, vvs vvs wrote:
> But how do you now that I'm not fixed it myself and forgot to post on
> that list? Or that I'm even just used to live with that bug and just
> don't want to spend all my time chasing it?
It's simple; if you (and everyone else) doesn't
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 18:23:18 -,
vvs vvs wrote:
Anyway, I'm not expecting that something will change because of that
discussion. It is just bad that the interests of users are of a lower priority
then some purely bureaucratic reasons.
It isn't happening because of bureaucratic
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 18:06:02 -,
vvs vvs wrote:
Yes, thanks. Sadly, I see that I have no choice but to switch to another
distribution even though I'm using 64-bit CPU. It's just that the memory can't
be upgraded and buying new computer just to keep running Fedora is not viable.
It's
But how do you now that I'm not fixed it myself and forgot to post on that
list? Or that I'm even just used to live with that bug and just don't want to
spend all my time chasing it?
I'm pretty sure that I can point point out bugs in official Fedora repository
that were dormant for several
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 17:55:06 -,
vvs vvs wrote:
First of all thanks for the link. It just proves that the SIG's expectations
were too high.
If I understand it all correctly, the main reason to drop i686 repo was the
mailing list inactivity? Is that right? So everyone interested in
Thanks for the suggestion. But I'm sure that I don't need so much bureaucracy
just to run my little errands. If that's how Fedora is operated, than it won't
make much difference for me to just using another distribution.
BTW, that just means that Fedora is refusing to provide much needed
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 05:55:06PM -, vvs vvs wrote:
> If I understand it all correctly, the main reason to drop i686 repo
> was the mailing list inactivity? Is that right? So everyone interested
> in that architecture is now deprived from using it on Fedora because
> some formalities were
Yes, thanks. Sadly, I see that I have no choice but to switch to another
distribution even though I'm using 64-bit CPU. It's just that the memory can't
be upgraded and buying new computer just to keep running Fedora is not viable.
It's 12 years old, is in good condition and I'm completely
First of all thanks for the link. It just proves that the SIG's expectations
were too high.
If I understand it all correctly, the main reason to drop i686 repo was the
mailing list inactivity? Is that right? So everyone interested in that
architecture is now deprived from using it on Fedora
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 14:52:07 -,
vvs vvs wrote:
May be there are more interested people that we know, but they are not reading
that list. There will just be just every man for himself and Fedora has failed
to recognize that.
This requires time and effort too. Nobody will appear just
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 03:36:45PM -, vvs vvs wrote:
>
> What work should be done? Please, be more specific.
Deja vu… please read https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/1737
(Proposal: i686 SIG needs to be functional by F27 release date or we
drop i686 kernel from F28) with all the links.
--
vvs vvs píše v Po 09. 09. 2019 v 15:44 +:
> I'm happy with any support no matter how it is defined. In fact I
> didn't get very much support from Fedora either over more than 20
> years, so my expectations are quite low.
You seem to have a rather narrow view of support. It's not just someone
No I didn't, but I must be sure that you speak on behalf of everyone before
making my choices.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
So, if I'd start to use Debian i686 instead of Fedora or will use ARM32 device
instead of ARM64 the world will be a safer place? Also, I was told that
maintaining i686 Fedora code base myself would be fine, but in the same time
I'm told that it's not acceptable from the safety point of view.
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 03:44:49PM -, vvs vvs wrote:
> If there is something more relevant than freedom of choice, then there
> is no point arguing further, because I value community relations over
> any technical reasons.
You seem to forget that "freedom of choice" also applies to those
I'm happy with any support no matter how it is defined. In fact I didn't get
very much support from Fedora either over more than 20 years, so my
expectations are quite low.
If there is something more relevant than freedom of choice, then there is no
point arguing further, because I value
There is no either right or wrong stance here. We are discussing possible
alternatives to "just drop it" attitude.
What work should be done? Please, be more specific. Right now I'm running a
i686 userland and it works. If I would be able to build the whole repository
myself I'm pretty sure
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 02:41:15PM -, vvs vvs wrote:
> OTOH, if Debian has resources to maintain the support for at least
> next five years it means one of two things: either they have more
> resources than Fedora, or something is wrong with your assessment.
Or (3) Debian defines "support"
- Original Message -
> From: "vvs vvs"
> To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> Sent: Monday, September 9, 2019 4:52:07 PM
> Subject: Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686
> Repositories
>
> May be there are more
I will do whatever I can and it's not much for ANY architecture, x86_64 is not
an exception. That's because I'm not very young and have a lot of other more
important activities which is not related to computers.
That said, I'm not expecting very much in return either. If it would somehow
work
May be there are more interested people that we know, but they are not reading
that list. There will just be just every man for himself and Fedora has failed
to recognize that.
This requires time and effort too. Nobody will appear just by a miracle. I
recognize that there is much less people
Ok, if that's so hard then I'm apologize for not recognizing the pain.
OTOH, if Debian has resources to maintain the support for at least next five
years it means one of two things: either they have more resources than Fedora,
or something is wrong with your assessment.
I'd help with
On 9/9/19 9:28 AM, vvs vvs wrote:
Boy, am I glad you've said that. I was waiting for it.
But looks like you are mistaken. First of all, it's not one, but at least two
of them. Second, nobody else seems to be supporting your point.
E-mails to this list don't get work done. Code commits get
Boy, am I glad you've said that. I was waiting for it.
But looks like you are mistaken. First of all, it's not one, but at least two
of them. Second, nobody else seems to be supporting your point.
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
On Mon, Sep 09, 2019 at 06:22:46AM -0700, John M. Harris Jr. wrote:
> The system I'm sending this email from only has 4 GiB of memory in
> total. Does that mean that this system makes ASLR completely
> ineffective? Should this arch also be removed from Fedora, because of
> that?
*Address
On Monday, September 9, 2019 5:16:23 AM MST Vitaly Zaitsev via devel wrote:
> 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
* John M. Harris, Jr.:
> 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.
I'm not saying that the analogy is appropriate, but it is just
1 - 100 of 164 matches
Mail list logo
