Thanks for the response and sorry for taking so long to reply.
On Mon, Jun 18, 2018 at 10:05 PM, Kevin Kofler
wrote:
> Jeff Backus wrote:
> > Hmm.. Yes, we've had discussions within the SIG re: window managers that
> > support i586/i686, and KDE was on the list of WMs that no longer support
> >
Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> If someone wants keep 32bit fedora alive for pre-sse2 hardware I think
> the only reasonable thing would be to undust the i586 target, then go
> build software which requires sse2 as --target i686 and everything else
> as --target i586, i.e. basically stop the effort to
Hi,
> > effort, and nobody outside of Fedora cares about non-SSE2 anymore. Even
> > distros that claim to support non-SSE2 hardware just ship QtWebEngine as
> > SSE2 only. I haven't seen any other distro even picking up my patch, let
> > alone working on it. The Fedora Chromium, V8 and
On 06/18/2018 07:05 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Jeff Backus wrote:
>> Hmm.. Yes, we've had discussions within the SIG re: window managers that
>> support i586/i686, and KDE was on the list of WMs that no longer support
>> our target system. Do these patches/hacks only apply to KDE or do they
>>
Jeff Backus wrote:
> Hmm.. Yes, we've had discussions within the SIG re: window managers that
> support i586/i686, and KDE was on the list of WMs that no longer support
> our target system. Do these patches/hacks only apply to KDE or do they
> apply to Qt in general?
The absolute worst is
On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 2:09 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 06/04/2018 06:55 PM, Jeff Backus wrote:
>
> Thanks for the insight. Yes, I can see the advantages. However, have
>> things really gotten so bad that it justifies ejecting part of the
>> community?
>>
>
> The cost of i686 support is not
Michal Schorm writes:
> Can someone explain me *real quick* what is the multilib good for? - or
> more precisely, why whould anone run 32-bit software on x86_64 OS?
Among other reasons, 32-bit code can be smaller and faster than 64-bit
code for some applications. When trying to stuff many
On 7 June 2018 at 09:07, Michal Schorm wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:41 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 4:51 AM Michal Schorm wrote:
>>>
>>> Can someone explain me *real quick* what is the multilib good for? - or
>>> more precisely, why whould anone run 32-bit software
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 8:17 AM Richard Shaw wrote:
> The other is The Dark Mod, which is open source but they're still using
> the DOOM 3 graphics engine IIRC and their buildsystem which is still 32bit
> only.
>
HAH! Writing this caused me to google it and apparently with the latest
release
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 8:09 AM Michal Schorm wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:41 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 4:51 AM Michal Schorm wrote:
>>
>>> Can someone explain me *real quick* what is the multilib good for? - or
>>> more precisely, why whould anone run 32-bit
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 2:41 PM, Richard Shaw wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 4:51 AM Michal Schorm wrote:
>
>> Can someone explain me *real quick* what is the multilib good for? - or
>> more precisely, why whould anone run 32-bit software on x86_64 OS?
>>
> In my case, there are a couple of
On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 4:51 AM Michal Schorm wrote:
> Can someone explain me *real quick* what is the multilib good for? - or
> more precisely, why whould anone run 32-bit software on x86_64 OS?
>
In my case, there are a couple of games that are either older, or just not
provided in 64bit so I
Because sometimes the software I'm developing needs to link with
a proprietary library that is only available as 32 bit library.
It's a lot rarer than it used to be but there are still a few
databases that I work with that don't have 64 bit libraries.
Or indeed just because our customers want a
Can someone explain me *real quick* what is the multilib good for? - or
more precisely, why whould anone run 32-bit software on x86_64 OS?
>From what I googled, it look like everyone does it yet nobody explains why
:D
--
Michal Schorm
Associate Software Engineer
Core Services - Databases Team
On 06/04/2018 06:55 PM, Jeff Backus wrote:
Thanks for the insight. Yes, I can see the advantages. However, have
things really gotten so bad that it justifies ejecting part of the
community?
The cost of i686 support is not insignificant. Most of that happens
upstream (like features only
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 1:54 PM, Stephen John Smoogen
wrote:
> On 5 June 2018 at 12:49, Jeff Backus wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 10:07 PM, Matthew Miller <
> mat...@fedoraproject.org>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 03:50:34PM -0400, Jeff Backus wrote:
> >> > Thanks for
On Tue, Jun 5, 2018 at 1:55 PM Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>
> On 5 June 2018 at 12:49, Jeff Backus wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 10:07 PM, Matthew Miller
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 03:50:34PM -0400, Jeff Backus wrote:
> >> > Thanks for the data. 25k is still a
On 5 June 2018 at 12:49, Jeff Backus wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 10:07 PM, Matthew Miller
> wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 03:50:34PM -0400, Jeff Backus wrote:
>> > Thanks for the data. 25k is still a pretty healthy number. :) I realize
>>
>> Yeah, absolutely. And it's likely that
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 10:07 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 03:50:34PM -0400, Jeff Backus wrote:
> > Thanks for the data. 25k is still a pretty healthy number. :) I realize
>
> Yeah, absolutely. And it's likely that those mirror numbers undercount,
> because not every system
On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 10:07:55PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> But, my gut feeling is that about half of those are not using a current
> release _anyway_. Honest question: do you think that 12k would still
> count as a healthy number? I mean, it's not peanuts. But maybe it'd be
Ooh, I should
On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 03:50:34PM -0400, Jeff Backus wrote:
> Thanks for the data. 25k is still a pretty healthy number. :) I realize
Yeah, absolutely. And it's likely that those mirror numbers undercount,
because not every system checks in daily, and then there's also NAT.
But, my gut feeling
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 4:41 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Jeff Backus wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
> >
> >> Jeff Backus wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > Until (unless?) we have data indicating that this is a major drain on
> >> > community resources, I'd push back on a change
Jeff Backus wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
>
>> Jeff Backus wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Until (unless?) we have data indicating that this is a major drain on
>> > community resources, I'd push back on a change that actively excludes
>> part
>> > of the community. Now, if we do
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 4:00 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
> On 06/04/2018 02:50 PM, Jeff Backus wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the data. 25k is still a pretty healthy number. :) I realize
>> that there are a lot of unknowns in the data, so it is difficult to draw
>> any hard conclusions, but 25k is
On 06/04/2018 02:50 PM, Jeff Backus wrote:
Thanks for the data. 25k is still a pretty healthy number. :) I realize that there
are a lot of unknowns in the data, so it is difficult to draw any hard
conclusions, but 25k is still much larger than 0. Splitting into i686 into i586
and i686 would
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 2:18 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 02:01:13PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > > >>support long NOPs, for Intel CET. However, the majority of
> > > >>installations of i686 packages is for use on x86_64 systems, as
> > > >>multi-lib RPMs.
> > > >Based
On 4 June 2018 at 14:18, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 02:01:13PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>> > >>support long NOPs, for Intel CET. However, the majority of
>> > >>installations of i686 packages is for use on x86_64 systems, as
>> > >>multi-lib RPMs.
>> > >Based on what
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 2:01 PM, Matthew Miller
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 04:04:30PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > >>only addition over the i686/Pentium Pro baseline is a requirement to
> > >>support long NOPs, for Intel CET. However, the majority of
> > >>installations of i686
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 1:45 PM, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Jeff Backus wrote:
>
>
> > Until (unless?) we have data indicating that this is a major drain on
> > community resources, I'd push back on a change that actively excludes
> part
> > of the community. Now, if we do have data indicating that
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 1:46 PM, Josh Boyer
wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 12:55 PM Jeff Backus wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 12:11 PM, Florian Weimer
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 06/04/2018 05:55 PM, Jeff Backus wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Would you please provide more detail on what problem
On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 02:01:13PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > >>support long NOPs, for Intel CET. However, the majority of
> > >>installations of i686 packages is for use on x86_64 systems, as
> > >>multi-lib RPMs.
> > >Based on what data?
> > The mirror data I've seen, but it's really
On Mon, Jun 04, 2018 at 04:04:30PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >>only addition over the i686/Pentium Pro baseline is a requirement to
> >>support long NOPs, for Intel CET. However, the majority of
> >>installations of i686 packages is for use on x86_64 systems, as
> >>multi-lib RPMs.
> >Based
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 12:55 PM Jeff Backus wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 12:11 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>
>> On 06/04/2018 05:55 PM, Jeff Backus wrote:
>>>
>>> Would you please provide more detail on what problem or problems we are
>>> trying to solve? Is this purely for efficiency
Jeff Backus wrote:
> Until (unless?) we have data indicating that this is a major drain on
> community resources, I'd push back on a change that actively excludes part
> of the community. Now, if we do have data indicating that supporting
> non-SSE2 systems with the i686 architecture is a
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 12:11 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 06/04/2018 05:55 PM, Jeff Backus wrote:
>
>> Would you please provide more detail on what problem or problems we are
>> trying to solve? Is this purely for efficiency reasons?
>>
>
> Mainly developer efficiency. There will be fewer
* Chris Adams [04/06/2018 10:58] :
>
> I think you are missing a some of The Atom chips that are 32-bit only;
> there are versions that were released as late as 2010 that don't support
> 64-bit (I don't know when they were discontinued).
You're thinking of the Lincroft series of Intel CPUs:
On 06/04/2018 05:55 PM, Jeff Backus wrote:
Would you please provide more detail on what problem or problems we are
trying to solve? Is this purely for efficiency reasons?
Mainly developer efficiency. There will be fewer test suite problems
due to excess precision (a bunch of packages carry
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 11:52 AM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> On Mon, 2018-06-04 at 17:21 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > On 06/04/2018 05:07 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2018-06-04 at 16:04 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > This proposal suggests to accept this reality and build
Once upon a time, Adam Jackson said:
> Certainly, I'm no netburst fan either. But the last[*] 32-bit-only
> Intel chip was Yonah (Core 1), which went out of production in 2008-
> ish, so there's about seven years worth of CPUs between the
> introductions of SSE2 and AMD64.
I think you are
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 7:20 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> = Proposed System Wide Change: i686 Is For x86-64 =
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/i686_Is_For_x86-64
>
>
> Owner(s):
> * Florian Weimer
>
>
> Fedora builds its i686 packages for use on x86-64 systems as multi-lib
> RPMs.
>
>
>
On Mon, 2018-06-04 at 17:21 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 06/04/2018 05:07 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
> > On Mon, 2018-06-04 at 16:04 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >
> > > > > This proposal suggests to accept this reality and build the i686
> > > > > packages in such a way that they require the
On 06/04/2018 05:07 PM, Adam Jackson wrote:
On Mon, 2018-06-04 at 16:04 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
This proposal suggests to accept this reality and build the i686
packages in such a way that they require the ISA level of (early)
x86-64 CPUs.
On which x86 CPU families will Fedora continue
On Mon, 2018-06-04 at 16:04 +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> > > This proposal suggests to accept this reality and build the i686
> > > packages in such a way that they require the ISA level of (early)
> > > x86-64 CPUs.
> >
> > On which x86 CPU families will Fedora continue to work?
>
> Based on
On 06/04/2018 02:39 PM, Alexander Ploumistos wrote:
== Detailed description ==
Currently, the i686 RPM packages are built in such a way that they are
compatible with very old i686 systems, such as the Pentium III. The
only addition over the i686/Pentium Pro baseline is a requirement to
support
> == Detailed description ==
> Currently, the i686 RPM packages are built in such a way that they are
> compatible with very old i686 systems, such as the Pentium III. The
> only addition over the i686/Pentium Pro baseline is a requirement to
> support long NOPs, for Intel CET. However, the
45 matches
Mail list logo
