Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 soon, e.g. Debian, NixOS, Gentoo. There > > must me some very fundamental difference with how they operate. > > 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? > > - Panu - In other distros, working architectures aren't simply dropped at random. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 totally untested, please send patch along to report > any issue (or report upstream if relevant). > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/kwizart/kernel-longterm-4.19/ While I appreciate the effort, this also doesn't work in the long term (pun intended) once we start packaging or upgrading software that relies on whatever Fedora's kernel provides that isn't in 4.19 we break that piece of software... Dridi ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 maintain > such a kernel in Fedora by applying downstream packages of such a > distro. 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 totally untested, please send patch along to report any issue (or report upstream if relevant). https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/kwizart/kernel-longterm-4.19/ Best regards. -- - Nicolas (kwizart) ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
> 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 distro. That person'd need to find a distribution that goes at least as fast Fedora when it comes to upgrading kernel packages... I very much doubt we'll find one we could rely on. Dridi ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 difference with how they operate. 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? - Panu - ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 one of the reasons might be that some are relying on users to build packages themselves. OTOH they have their own CI, binary repositories/caches and Debian only has binaries for its package management. Why the difference? I'm not sure... ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
> 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 formalities like SIG or commitments which they can't make > and it is always available for anyone who can afford to spend some additional > time if such bug affects them bad enough. > That's literally all the x86 SIG was asked to do - get some small investigation work going so that between all of them, packages that had i686-unique bugs could be fixed in a timely fashion. They couldn't get enough interest going to even keep the kernel building for i686 as well as x86-64. Everything else, including commitments from individuals and the mailing list, was secondary to that goal, and was only looked at because the x86 SIG was failing to help resolve FTBFS bugs that were blocking S390, x86-64 and other arches. > I think this could work better than previous attempts at keeping x86 SIG > alive. Of course nothing prevents some volunteers to do above work on behalf > of other users or create mirrors for distribution of i686 packages. But this > is not critical to keep things running. The problem is that you're discussing what the x86 SIG was formed to do - the only reason to form a SIG to begin with was so that there was a bit of Fedora infrastructure (mailing lists etc) devoted to connecting packagers with i686-only problems to people who were willing to try and solve them. If no-one's willing to actually do anything to fix i686 FTBFS issues, then Fedora will drop i686 support eventually. That's all that's happening here - no-one wants to do anything to keep i686 alive as an architecture for Fedora, so Fedora is dropping i686. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
F31+ i386 chroots build against Koji buildroots [was Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories]
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 guess doing the release blocking > > tests on i686 at Beta and Final might be a good start, but thats a ton > > of work for one person... is there anyone else you have talked to that > > wants to do this? > > I want to state one consequence. As there is no compose, the mock configs > fedora-31-i386 and fedora-rawhide-i386 will > point directly to Koji. > > https://github.com/rpm-software-management/mock/commit/a0c5d493c362c993d69619261cdba3a0f3e4cb99 > > All local builds into this chroot will likely be slow. > And I will likely remove (or move to /etc/mock/eol/ ) those files in near > future. > > This may affect CI of 3rd parties. FTR, we changed this in Copr as well - otherwise _all_ the builds in fedora-31-i386+ would already fail. So please note that the fedora 31+ `i386` build chroot are _different_ from other architectures (in copr/mock), and really re-consider whether you want to build against them. Pavel ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 and it is always available for anyone who can afford to spend some additional time if such bug affects them bad enough. I think this could work better than previous attempts at keeping x86 SIG alive. Of course nothing prevents some volunteers to do above work on behalf of other users or create mirrors for distribution of i686 packages. But this is not critical to keep things running. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 completely > unnecessary and should be blamed on an utterl failure of communication. The fundamental thing here is that, when a package fails on S390 but not on x86-64, there are motivated people in the S390 SIG who'll help me out with what's wrong, explaining the differences between S390 and x86-64 in a useful format, and often just fixing it if it's an S390-specific oddity, not a straight bug that happens not to manifest on x86-64. In contrast, the x86 SIG never got enough volunteers to do the same role - if a build was an issue on x86 but not x86-64, then they'd not have the available manpower to help the package maintainer (often the kernel maintainers, in x86's case) fix the build. Had the x86 SIG been able to identify the root causes of bugs in packages that failed on x86, like the kernel, and come up with usable workarounds and/or fixes, then Fedora would not be considering dropping x86. As it is, though, it appears that nobody cares enough about 32-bit kernels and binaries (although some x86-64 people care about 32-bit libraries) to keep i686 builds going. Fundamentally, this happens in volunteer projects - nobody wants to do the work, nobody is willing to pay enough to get someone else to want to do the work, so it doesn't happen. -- Simon ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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. > > You also said that you're running a memory-hungry non-Fedora > application, which you presumably compile yourself. > > Therefore, it looks to me that you should try a 64-bit Fedora with a > memory-saving xfce, install a 32-bit GCC toolchain and compile your > app in 32-bit mode. This, a perfectly adequate solution. Or LXDE or mate or LXQt or fvwm or just X with a simple xterm that he uses to start his custom app. I think cinnamon or KDE would be roughly the same size as Gnome, so probably not viable alternatives to reduce memory usage. He could also compile a custom kernel tuned to his hardware from the x86_64 src.rpm, so it is smaller. The spec file could even be set up to build a 686 kernel from the source, if that is what he wants. He would have to fix any problems himself, though, to do that. He could share his results in copr for anyone wanting such a kernel. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Building_a_custom_kernel koji for the kernel https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=8 ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
> 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 -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 utterl failure of communication. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 but there is no strict agenda. This
> contradicts those expectations which you describe. So while there are
> people ready to do some work sometimes they just don't meet those
> criteria and this is not enough to be able to call them SIG.
Hopefully for the last time: the mailing list is not a requirement.
People checked the mailing list *after* the bugs were not fixed.
Fixing the bugs is the requirement.
G'luck,
Peter
--
Peter Pentchev roam@{ringlet.net,debian.org,FreeBSD.org} p...@storpool.com
PGP key:http://people.FreeBSD.org/~roam/roam.key.asc
Key fingerprint 2EE7 A7A5 17FC 124C F115 C354 651E EFB0 2527 DF13
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 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 > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > >> The lack of fixes for i686 kernels is slowing down all the other arches > > >> that are supported (and thus all of fedora). > > > > > > > > > The first sentence of that paragraph is simply incorrect, new hardware > > > doesn't change what old hardware supports, nor does the availability of > > > new hardware replace old hardware in itself. > > > > > > 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 still exist; I have one > > embedded in my wall (NSC Geode). But the last paragraph is important. > > Keeping the i686 kernel in Fedora is hurting everyone for the benefit of > > an extremely small group of users. > > Again, it's completely false that "almost all x86 hardware is 64-bit capable". > That may be true of newer hardware, but that does nothing to change existing > hardware. The laptop I'm typing this email on right now is 32 bit only, by the > way. It was manufactured in 2011. > > I also fail to see how keeping the i686 kernel "is slowing down all other > arches that are supported", and I'd love to know why that's the case, so I can > get to fixing it. > People offered to "get to fixing it" 2 years ago when this was first proposed. They organized, started a SIG, and then crickets. Turns out the fixing it takes continuous effort. This isn't a one time thing, it is issues that pop up regularly. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 still exist; I have one embedded in my wall (NSC Geode). But the last paragraph is important. Keeping the i686 kernel in Fedora is hurting everyone for the benefit of an extremely small group of users. Again, it's completely false that "almost all x86 hardware is 64-bit capable". That may be true of newer hardware, but that does nothing to change existing hardware. The laptop I'm typing this email on right now is 32 bit only, by the way. It was manufactured in 2011. I do understand that there are still a few 32-bit CPUs around, but if you take all the currently functional in-use x86 hardware, what percentage do you actually think is not 64-bit capable? You have to look really hard to find any. I got a bunch of P4 computers from _2005_ for a school computer lab. They are 64-bit capable and with 2GB of RAM they work great. I originally had some slightly older ones that might have been 32-bit only, but those are long gone. I also fail to see how keeping the i686 kernel "is slowing down all other arches that are supported", and I'd love to know why that's the case, so I can get to fixing it. Because when there is a problem with the 32-bit kernel compile, it breaks kernel updates for everyone. The issues take time to get fixed because even upstream barely cares about it. And fixing those issues takes developer time that would be more useful elsewhere. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 most x86 hardware supports 64bit > >> these days. It has been in a status of "community supported" for several > > > [snip] > > > >> The lack of fixes for i686 kernels is slowing down all the other arches > >> that are supported (and thus all of fedora). > > > > > > The first sentence of that paragraph is simply incorrect, new hardware > > doesn't change what old hardware supports, nor does the availability of > > new hardware replace old hardware in itself. > > > 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 still exist; I have one > embedded in my wall (NSC Geode). But the last paragraph is important. > Keeping the i686 kernel in Fedora is hurting everyone for the benefit of > an extremely small group of users. Again, it's completely false that "almost all x86 hardware is 64-bit capable". That may be true of newer hardware, but that does nothing to change existing hardware. The laptop I'm typing this email on right now is 32 bit only, by the way. It was manufactured in 2011. I also fail to see how keeping the i686 kernel "is slowing down all other arches that are supported", and I'd love to know why that's the case, so I can get to fixing it. - - John Harris ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 several [snip] The lack of fixes for i686 kernels is slowing down all the other arches that are supported (and thus all of fedora). The first sentence of that paragraph is simply incorrect, new hardware doesn't change what old hardware supports, nor does the availability of new hardware replace old hardware in itself. 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 still exist; I have one embedded in my wall (NSC Geode). But the last paragraph is important. Keeping the i686 kernel in Fedora is hurting everyone for the benefit of an extremely small group of users. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 agenda. This contradicts those expectations which you describe. So while there are people ready to do some work sometimes they just don't meet those criteria and this is not enough to be able to call them SIG. And that's the whole problem here. Those people are not able to do enough work to keep i686 going. As has been said here many times, if you can get enough people to do the necessary work, then there is no need for the i686 repos to go away. But that just hasn't happened. I don't think there are any requirement to create a SIG other than to have a group of people interested in the topic. The SIG still exists, but it isn't doing enough to be able to keep i686 alive. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 repositories. And to be really clear about it, those 32-bit multilib libraries are in the 64-bit repository, so for now they aren't going away even if the 32-bit repo does. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 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 time to experiment every time something have > > > changed. > > > > > > > > > > > You are right that I can reduce memory footprint by carefully tuning my > > > system. But that's what I've already did and Fedora breaks it just too > > > often. I'm used to work without GNOME on my other computer that have > only > > > 32-bit CPU. But it started to be very painful to upgrade to newer > Fedora > > > releases. So, when I've got 64-bit computer I've just went with the > flow > > > and don't customize parts I'm not really interested in. I want to spend > > > on it as little time as possible. Going for my own Linux from scratch > is > > > just not viable. > > > > 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. > > > > You also said that you're running a memory-hungry non-Fedora > > application, which you presumably compile yourself. > > > > Therefore, it looks to me that you should try a 64-bit Fedora with a > > memory-saving xfce, install a 32-bit GCC toolchain and compile your app > > in 32-bit mode. > > 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 repositories. > - - > John Harris > > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject. > org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists. > fedoraproject.org > ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 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 time to experiment every time something have > > changed. > > > > > > > You are right that I can reduce memory footprint by carefully tuning my > > system. But that's what I've already did and Fedora breaks it just too > > often. I'm used to work without GNOME on my other computer that have only > > 32-bit CPU. But it started to be very painful to upgrade to newer Fedora > > releases. So, when I've got 64-bit computer I've just went with the flow > > and don't customize parts I'm not really interested in. I want to spend > > on it as little time as possible. Going for my own Linux from scratch is > > just not viable. > > 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. > > You also said that you're running a memory-hungry non-Fedora > application, which you presumably compile yourself. > > Therefore, it looks to me that you should try a 64-bit Fedora with a > memory-saving xfce, install a 32-bit GCC toolchain and compile your app > in 32-bit mode. Compiling his app as 32 bit would require 32 bit repositories for the libraries he plans on linking. - - John Harris ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 days. It has been in a status of "community supported" for several > Fedora releases now. As such, it gets very little testing, and issues > frequently appear upstream. These tend to go unnoticed for long periods > of time. When issues are found, it is often a long time before they are > fixed because they are considered low priority by most developers > upstream. This can leave other architectures waiting for important > updates, and provides a less than desirable experience for people > choosing to run a 32bit kernel. With this proposal, the i686 kernel will > no longer be built. A kernel headers package will still exist, and all > 32bit packages should continue to build as normal. The main difference > is there would no longer be bootable 32bit images." > > The lack of fixes for i686 kernels is slowing down all the other arches > that are supported (and thus all of fedora). > > kevin The first sentence of that paragraph is simply incorrect, new hardware doesn't change what old hardware supports, nor does the availability of new hardware replace old hardware in itself. - - John Harris ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 expectations which you describe. So while there are people ready to do some work sometimes they just don't meet those criteria and this is not enough to be able to call them SIG. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
* 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 being done but thoses SIGS still do the work necessary to keep their stack in the distribution. > If that really was that simple then just subscribing to that list > would be enough to get support for x86 architecture and we wouldn't > be here. I think you're confusing cause and effect, here. We look at Bugzilla stats and mailing-lists activity because it's (supposed to be) indicative of the work being done. It's a by-product, not the final outcome. Subscribing to a mailing-list (and even posting to it) isn't going to improve the packages in the distribution by itself. Emmanuel ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 was too careless by using Fedora's default preferences. But again, as my experience shows using anything other than Gnome gives you worse support from developers. But I have nothing to lose anyway. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 suppose that SIG is a much formal entity than just a bunch of individuals performing some non-regular activities. Even mailing list activity is part of that FESCo criteria. And there are Bugzilla, etc. If that really was that simple then just subscribing to that list would be enough to get support for x86 architecture and we wouldn't be here. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 MB of memory. And I have not much time to experiment every time something have changed. You are right that I can reduce memory footprint by carefully tuning my system. But that's what I've already did and Fedora breaks it just too often. I'm used to work without GNOME on my other computer that have only 32-bit CPU. But it started to be very painful to upgrade to newer Fedora releases. So, when I've got 64-bit computer I've just went with the flow and don't customize parts I'm not really interested in. I want to spend on it as little time as possible. Going for my own Linux from scratch is just not viable. 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. You also said that you're running a memory-hungry non-Fedora application, which you presumably compile yourself. Therefore, it looks to me that you should try a 64-bit Fedora with a memory-saving xfce, install a 32-bit GCC toolchain and compile your app in 32-bit mode. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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, but then f31-build, f32-build, f33-build, etc will exist... I don't think this will go away until we no long need multilib (ie, steam and others move to 64bit). kevin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
> 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. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
* 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 x86 SIG. The discussion on the mailing list started off at a reasonable rate and then slowed to a stop because it couldn't keep its momentum going. So the fault with the SIG not working really lies with the people who wanted to keep x86_32 going not being able/willing to do the work necessary, not all the other Fedora developers. > Either we can be a low activity grass-roots enthusiasts and find our > own ways to contribute packages, e.g. COPR might be useful. This is pretty much the definition of a SIG. Emmanuel ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 myself if needed. But Fedora is refusing to provide such > repository which was built automatically by Koji. I don't care if something > was broken in that repository as long as I can access those binaries and fix > them if needed. You are welcome to use the koji buildroot repo for that. https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/repos/f30-build/latest > But no matter how frequently I repeat it, I'm always get answers that I'm > insisting that somebody should work for me. No I'm not. If it's so difficult > to keep that repository around, then it's just fine with me and I'll find > another way. But that would be very unfortunate. It's more trouble than we think it's worth to compose a i686 repo and distribute it to hundreds of mirrors and support bugs and issues in it. kevin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 releases now. As such, it gets very little testing, and issues frequently appear upstream. These tend to go unnoticed for long periods of time. When issues are found, it is often a long time before they are fixed because they are considered low priority by most developers upstream. This can leave other architectures waiting for important updates, and provides a less than desirable experience for people choosing to run a 32bit kernel. With this proposal, the i686 kernel will no longer be built. A kernel headers package will still exist, and all 32bit packages should continue to build as normal. The main difference is there would no longer be bootable 32bit images." The lack of fixes for i686 kernels is slowing down all the other arches that are supported (and thus all of fedora). kevin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 good start, but thats a ton > of work for one person... is there anyone else you have talked to that > wants to do this? I want to state one consequence. As there is no compose, the mock configs fedora-31-i386 and fedora-rawhide-i386 will point directly to Koji. https://github.com/rpm-software-management/mock/commit/a0c5d493c362c993d69619261cdba3a0f3e4cb99 All local builds into this chroot will likely be slow. And I will likely remove (or move to /etc/mock/eol/ ) those files in near future. This may affect CI of 3rd parties. -- Miroslav Suchy, RHCA Red Hat, Associate Manager ABRT/Copr, #brno, #fedora-buildsys signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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: > > > > [...] > > > [...] > > > > > > I'm probably one of the few people still running Fedora on a machine that > > > uses i686, that can't use x86_64. The machine is around 15 years old and > > > is > > > costly to get replacement parts for and I'm running out of spares. I was > > > supposed to replace the machine last month, but needed another month to > > > save up enough to buy the rest of the replacement. I've actually work with > > > upstream to get kernel bugs fixed for this machine. > > > > > > Unfortunately I run rawhide and things got shut down a little sooner > > > than I hoped, so I'm not getting updates right now and don't want to go > > > back to f30 with the short horizon for retirement (though I did grab an > > > f30 kernel). > > > > > > I don't think you are going to find many people who both run Fedora and > > > have to use i686. > > > > > > There is a cost to keeping things running on i686 and it doesn't look like > > > it is worth paying right now. And things are looking to get worse rather > > > than better. > > > > > > You have options. You can switch to another distro that will support i686 > > > for a while yet. Use f30 until it's EOL (or beyond if the machines are > > > isolated). Or maintain your own distro. The tools for Fedora are open, > > > so you could set up your own koji instance drawing from Fedora and > > > applying > > > your fixes where needed. Getting started will probably be hard, but once > > > things are running you'll be OK until there is a key bug you can't get > > > fixed. > > > > There are at least 4 people in this thread alone that are running Fedora on > > x86 systems. > > Do these 4 people want to revive the x86 SIG and take on the work of > dealing with 32-bit x86 bugs? Because they *do* exist and do cause > problems... I'm also using several Fedora/i686 machines and I'd like to help keep this branch. As often, the problem is with the lack of time and the fact that I do not know the full range of work to be done. But if one of the current experienced i686 maintainers is willing to continue, I'll join. I have some experience with creating and managing RPM packages. Can I register somewhere as interested in this job? -- Thanks, Franta Hanzlik ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 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 interested in this architecture > > >but it's much more than zero. > > > > I'm probably one of the few people still running Fedora on a machine that > > uses i686, that can't use x86_64. The machine is around 15 years old and is > > costly to get replacement parts for and I'm running out of spares. I was > > supposed to replace the machine last month, but needed another month to > > save up enough to buy the rest of the replacement. I've actually work with > > upstream to get kernel bugs fixed for this machine. > > > > Unfortunately I run rawhide and things got shut down a little sooner > > than I hoped, so I'm not getting updates right now and don't want to go > > back to f30 with the short horizon for retirement (though I did grab an > > f30 kernel). > > > > I don't think you are going to find many people who both run Fedora and > > have to use i686. > > > > There is a cost to keeping things running on i686 and it doesn't look like > > it is worth paying right now. And things are looking to get worse rather > > than better. > > > > You have options. You can switch to another distro that will support i686 > > for a while yet. Use f30 until it's EOL (or beyond if the machines are > > isolated). Or maintain your own distro. The tools for Fedora are open, > > so you could set up your own koji instance drawing from Fedora and applying > > your fixes where needed. Getting started will probably be hard, but once > > things are running you'll be OK until there is a key bug you can't get > > fixed. > > There are at least 4 people in this thread alone that are running Fedora on > x86 systems. Do these 4 people want to revive the x86 SIG and take on the work of dealing with 32-bit x86 bugs? Because they *do* exist and do cause problems... -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 time to experiment every time something have changed. You are right that I can reduce memory footprint by carefully tuning my system. But that's what I've already did and Fedora breaks it just too often. I'm used to work without GNOME on my other computer that have only 32-bit CPU. But it started to be very painful to upgrade to newer Fedora releases. So, when I've got 64-bit computer I've just went with the flow and don't customize parts I'm not really interested in. I want to spend on it as little time as possible. Going for my own Linux from scratch is just not viable. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 person. And the primary reason why that SIG initiative never worked is that the project didn't put any significant efforts to make that happen. See, if I would join that list now there will be just one person - me. And I don't have ability or time to actively search for and convince other people to join that list. As time goes by I won't participate in that list too often and others won't either. To keep being recognized by Fedora officials there are just not enough activists out there. While we still can support that architecture occasionally on a case by case basis, there is no possibility to meet FESCO approved criteria. That means that there will never be official recognition despite the fact that such interested people still exist. There are just two options as I currently see it. Either we can be a low activity grass-roots enthusiasts and find our own ways to contribute packages, e.g. COPR might be useful. Or we can join more resourceful community, e.g. Debian. Or we can do both. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 the proprietary Linux software that I use is 64 bit. Regards, Dominik -- Fedora https://getfedora.org | RPM Fusion http://rpmfusion.org There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and oppression to develop psychic muscles. -- from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
> 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. Koji still builds the i686 packages by default even on F32 > You can't use packages that don't exist. They don't exist unless > someone supports them. Therefore you can't use an unsupported package. > It's not because policy forbids it, it's because they don't exist > without the act of a human maintainer making them build (which is > described as "supporting" the package.) > > Does that make sense? No! ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 overreacting a bit, but there is some truth in this. > Fedora is created and maintained by the community. You are part of the > community. If enough of the community shares your needs, some fraction > of those will step up to do the work, and you all benefit. If your > needs aren't shared by enough of the community, either you need to do it > all yourself (or pay someone to act on your behalf), or your needs will > never get met. > > This has nothing to do with "deserve" or "blame" - it's just numbers. > Most people have switched to 64-bit, so most work is done for 64-bit, > even if not all the 64-bit users are also contributors. > > The 32-bit community has shrunk to the point where there aren't enough > contributors to keep the builds building and the fixes fixing, and there > are real problems backing up because of that, even if they don't affect > you personally. When there are enough problems and no contributors, > what other choice do we have? It's broken and nobody is fixing it. > > Thus comes the hard part of any project - put up or shut up. Harsh, but > it's the root of how things get done - they get done by people doing > them. Do or do not, there is no sit-on-the-mailing-list-and-hope. > > Back when I started the DJGPP project, I had to do everything myself. > The community grew and there were lots of contributors. Then the > community shrunk until we're back down to 2 people doing all the work. > Thus is the cycle of projects, but I don't complain that not enough > people are still using DOS :-) > > OTOH you won't hurt our feelings if you switch distros. Go where your > community is ;-) While most users on Intel/AMD based systems are now running x64 kernels, most proprietary software released for various GNU/Linux distros are 32 bit. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [EXT] Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 myself. After > > removing i686 repository I'm either should start building it myself or > > switch to another distribution. I'm not trying to hurt anyone's feelings, > > I just have no other choice. If there is no possibility to keep that > > repository than it's fine, but I was not convinced that there are other > > reasons for that decision aside bureaucratic ones and lack of empathy. If > > putting that repository on some optional host for anyone to be able to > > fix it themselves would severely harm the project then I was wrong all > > along and I'm really sorry. > > If you don't care about i686 not being "supported" but just want to have > access to the repositories so you can use/fix them yourself, then why don't > you just keep running Fedora 30 or 29 forever? The old bits will always be > there (moved to archive/ directory) and you can keep using them. Please do not suggest things like that. That would mean that security updates are not provided, bug fixes never make it in, and so on. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 you, there are those of us in Fedora that want to help users like you. I'm one of them, and I'd be more than happy to step up to the plate and get to work on "supporting" x86 based systems. I've got systems shipping out to me now from my old location. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 that I was completely satisfied with the status quo and it was a big > surprise for me to discover that I just won't be able to upgrade to the > next version. Also, this discovery was purely accidental because there is > no announcements anywhere I could see. > Anyway, I would be prepared to fix things myself if such possibility was > given to me. But alas there is no choice now. Agreed, most bugs that affect x86 also support x64. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 be able to build the whole > repository myself I'm pretty sure that most things will still work. If it > won't work I might try to fix it and contribute patches back. But without > that repository I can't even try it in the first place. > You are just pushing me and others away, so we should go use other > distributions which provide ready to run builds. And I'm not talking about > i686 *kernel* anywhere. We are talking about *userland* only. I'm running > 64-bit CPU all along, but I have limited memory. Others could use laptops > with restricted memory which would be a performance hit if they start using > x86_64 userland. > You are not providing any alternative but starting to build everything > ourselves or stop using Fedora and move elsewhere. There's no reason to drop x86 kernel builds either. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 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 interested in this architecture > >but it's much more than zero. > > I'm probably one of the few people still running Fedora on a machine that > uses i686, that can't use x86_64. The machine is around 15 years old and is > costly to get replacement parts for and I'm running out of spares. I was > supposed to replace the machine last month, but needed another month to > save up enough to buy the rest of the replacement. I've actually work with > upstream to get kernel bugs fixed for this machine. > > Unfortunately I run rawhide and things got shut down a little sooner > than I hoped, so I'm not getting updates right now and don't want to go > back to f30 with the short horizon for retirement (though I did grab an > f30 kernel). > > I don't think you are going to find many people who both run Fedora and > have to use i686. > > There is a cost to keeping things running on i686 and it doesn't look like > it is worth paying right now. And things are looking to get worse rather > than better. > > You have options. You can switch to another distro that will support i686 > for a while yet. Use f30 until it's EOL (or beyond if the machines are > isolated). Or maintain your own distro. The tools for Fedora are open, > so you could set up your own koji instance drawing from Fedora and applying > your fixes where needed. Getting started will probably be hard, but once > things are running you'll be OK until there is a key bug you can't get > fixed. There are at least 4 people in this thread alone that are running Fedora on x86 systems. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 this arch also be removed from Fedora, because of > > that? > > *Address Space* is not the same as *Physical Memory*. > > I suggest you educate yourself on the difference between the two, as > that distinction is perhaps the fundamental underpinning of memory > management. > > - Solomon I don't think you understand what I was getting at. Cheap joke, essentially. ASLR is only one part of the many layers of security in modern systems. It's not worth getting rid of support for one of the most popular architectures just because ASLR may be slightly less effective than on other architectures. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 losing yet another hundred megabytes for no particular reason. And I don't think that constantly upgrading my computer is the answer. I remember times when it was possible to install Red Hat Linux on a computer with 32 MB of RAM. Going in that direction I should do nothing but upgrade every now and then even though I don't want my computer to affect my activities that hard. And some people thought that Windows 95 was a memory hog! In all your emails, you have never said that you've tried to use a 64-bit userspace. You keep making this claim that if you did you would lose "another hundred megabytes", but have you actually tried it? You can still run Linux in an extremely limited amount of RAM. I do it all the time with openwrt. But do you really want to go back to the level of functionality you had back then? ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 primary builds. This had plenty of problems of its own. You can read a bit below, and maybe others can provide more history. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures/RedefiningSecondaryArchitectures https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/3BO5E2XZ2D7BHK7GQXZB5S37AQIUN6YP/#ZYYG7RP754ONDU4T7DVFQ5U6YAXWSH55 > And that you can't exclude that architecture for a specific package? You can, but if everyone gets free license to ignore i686, I think it won't be long before you find yourself without some key packages. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 from what I already knew. 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 losing yet another hundred megabytes for no particular reason. And I don't think that constantly upgrading my computer is the answer. I remember times when it was possible to install Red Hat Linux on a computer with 32 MB of RAM. Going in that direction I should do nothing but upgrade every now and then even though I don't want my computer to affect my activities that hard. And some people thought that Windows 95 was a memory hog! Honestly, I'm tired. And I don't think that arguing further will be of any help. I'm convinced that I really have no other choice but just use some Linux distribution that doesn't requires me to spend so much time explaining to everyone why I need things in my life to be the way I need it. And it reminds me about some guy who maintains some quite popular software. He used some old SUSE until he was forced to upgrade. After struggling with consequences he just bought Apple computer with Mac OS. He explained that he is just too old to waste so much time on unimportant things. I don't remember his name. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 by Koji. I don't care if something was broken in that repository as long as I can access those binaries and fix them if needed. But that's just it, there is no automatically built repository. And when there is a problem with a package not building for i686, it breaks it for everyone. You also didn't answer the question from my previous email: Have you even tried running the 64-bit version to see if it really has the problems you think it will? ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 affect another architecture that would be a problem for them, but I think that decoupling unsupported repositories should solve that problem. That would be good anyway for a number of reasons. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 such repository which was built automatically by Koji. I don't care if something was broken in that repository as long as I can access those binaries and fix them if needed. But no matter how frequently I repeat it, I'm always get answers that I'm insisting that somebody should work for me. No I'm not. If it's so difficult to keep that repository around, then it's just fine with me and I'll find another way. But that would be very unfortunate. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [EXT] Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 I could use another repository provided by some other distribution. I'm just trying to find out what are my options. I would prefer to keep using modern Fedora unless I'm forced not to. Just in case. There is no reason to believe that I'm upset or frustrated. That's just a conversation which might get heated at a time for various reasons which are not directly related to the subject. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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? 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. You can't use packages that don't exist. They don't exist unless someone supports them. Therefore you can't use an unsupported package. It's not because policy forbids it, it's because they don't exist without the act of a human maintainer making them build (which is described as "supporting" the package.) Does that make sense? ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: [EXT] Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 myself or switch to another > distribution. I'm not trying to hurt anyone's feelings, I just have no other > choice. If there is no possibility to keep that repository than it's fine, > but I was not convinced that there are other reasons for that decision aside > bureaucratic ones and lack of empathy. If putting that repository on some > optional host for anyone to be able to fix it themselves would severely harm > the project then I was wrong all along and I'm really sorry. If you don't care about i686 not being "supported" but just want to have access to the repositories so you can use/fix them yourself, then why don't you just keep running Fedora 30 or 29 forever? The old bits will always be there (moved to archive/ directory) and you can keep using them. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 anyone's feelings, I just have no other choice. If there is no possibility to keep that repository than it's fine, but I was not convinced that there are other reasons for that decision aside bureaucratic ones and lack of empathy. If putting that repository on some optional host for anyone to be able to fix it themselves would severely harm the project then I was wrong all along and I'm really sorry. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 look above in that thread, where I've already explained that my memory is already stretched enough and I have not enough reasons to buy a new computer just because some OS requirements. You should understand that computers are not that important for many users. They have more important things in their life and using Fedora is just a convenience. I can switch to another distribution if there is no other choice, but the reasons for that decision are so obscure, that it required such a long thread just to find it out. Also, it's not very convincing for end users when they get a long description of bureaucratic reasons why they just can't use packages anymore that they were already using and that other distribution happily provide. I'm sorry if this caused a lot of traffic on this list, but I was not aware of that problem up to the last moment. And you can expect some other users like me to complain when they will be confronted with the fact. Just announcing it on the first page two years ago would have avoided that problem. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
"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 maintained by the community. You are part of the community. If enough of the community shares your needs, some fraction of those will step up to do the work, and you all benefit. If your needs aren't shared by enough of the community, either you need to do it all yourself (or pay someone to act on your behalf), or your needs will never get met. This has nothing to do with "deserve" or "blame" - it's just numbers. Most people have switched to 64-bit, so most work is done for 64-bit, even if not all the 64-bit users are also contributors. The 32-bit community has shrunk to the point where there aren't enough contributors to keep the builds building and the fixes fixing, and there are real problems backing up because of that, even if they don't affect you personally. When there are enough problems and no contributors, what other choice do we have? It's broken and nobody is fixing it. Thus comes the hard part of any project - put up or shut up. Harsh, but it's the root of how things get done - they get done by people doing them. Do or do not, there is no sit-on-the-mailing-list-and-hope. Back when I started the DJGPP project, I had to do everything myself. The community grew and there were lots of contributors. Then the community shrunk until we're back down to 2 people doing all the work. Thus is the cycle of projects, but I don't complain that not enough people are still using DOS :-) OTOH you won't hurt our feelings if you switch distros. Go where your community is ;-) ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 "refusing" to provide services. Fedora is maintained by VOLUNTEERS. If there is no one interested in doing certain work, it doesn't get done. At this time there is no one interested in i686 that has the time to keep it going. It won't keep working if no one is involved. If you are going to keep insisting that other people have to do what you want, then please do find another distro. Have you even tried running the 64-bit version to see if it really has the problems you think it will? ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 important things to do because life is too short. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 feels a bit faster now. I had a similar experience. I setup a bunch of old P4 desktops for a school computer lab. Initially, I used a 32-bit install, but then I discovered that they actually supported 64-bit. A Mate desktop runs just fine in 2GB of RAM even with Firefox and Libreoffice. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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. And I can't change their code, because that codebase is big and complex (as usual) and I just don't have enough time to do everything myself. Have you actually tested this? That is very odd behavior. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 https://getfedora.org/ "Fedora creates an innovative, free, and open source platform for hardware, clouds, and containers that enables software developers and community members to build tailored solutions for their users." ... "Fedora Workstation is a polished, easy to use operating system for laptop and desktop computers, with a complete set of tools for developers and makers of all kinds." Using Fedora (or not) has always been your choice. Good day, - Solomon -- Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org High Springs, FL ^^ (email/xmpp) ^^ Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 hit. And I can't change their code, because that > codebase is big and complex (as usual) and I just don't have enough > time to do everything myself. Honestly, it sounds like your 12-year-old system is barely adequate for your needs, and even a minimally-newer system capable of holding more RAM would pay for itself pretty rapidly. (Unless you don't value your own time or stress levels..) - Solomon -- Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org High Springs, FL ^^ (email/xmpp) ^^ Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 running just fine and actually feels a bit faster now. That's been my experience too; the architectural improvements for x86_64 over i686 yielded a noticable performance boost that more than offset the memory usage penalty of larger pointer sizes, even for traditionally-RAM-intensive stuff like cross-compiling. - Solomon -- Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org High Springs, FL ^^ (email/xmpp) ^^ Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 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 that > architecture, then rushing to drastic measures just won't have enough > rationale and will be viewed as a lack of care. There was a lot of discussion on this list, in fesco tickets in fesco meetings, on phoronix, etc. I'm not sure what you mean by 'respecting users freedom of choice'. We cannot possibly provide all choices that anyone wants or thinks they want. Really it comes down to (in rough order of effectiveness): * Try and convince people doing the work to provide/continue to provide the thing you want, but realize that the people doing the work are under no obligation here, you need to convince them there is some reason they find compelling. * Offer to do some / part / all of the work, but realize here too you need to convince the people doing the work now that it's worth the time / resources to allow you to do the work (although this is a much better 'sell' than just convincing people. It's pretty clear that i686 is dwindling as an arch. It was pretty clear a few years ago when it was demoted to a alternative arch and the x86 sig was setup to try and work on issues that came up. No one really did so, so it's time to take the next steps. > 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 that most things will still > work. If it won't work I might try to fix it and contribute patches > back. But without that repository I can't even try it in the first place. Lets step back a step here. Why are you running a 32bit userspace? There's not really any advantage (and some disadvantages) to doing so. 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 good start, but thats a ton of work for one person... is there anyone else you have talked to that wants to do this? kevin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 and complex (as usual) and I just don't have enough time to do everything myself. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 big surprise for me to discover that I just won't be able to upgrade to the next version. Also, this discovery was purely accidental because there is no announcements anywhere I could see. Anyway, I would be prepared to fix things myself if such possibility was given to me. But alas there is no choice now. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 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 satisfied with > > its performance for my needs. I wonder > > what owners of thin terminals will do if they used Fedora, especially if > > there are many of them. The cost of > > upgrading some old terminals for some school can be too high. > > It is probably very rare for someone to have just enough memory for a system > to > run reasonably using i686, but tank when using x86_64. If there is some > key code that causes the problem, you might be able to rebuild that code to > use 32 bit addresses and save enough memory to make things work reasonably. 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 feels a bit faster now. [0] https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/35641/intel-atom-processor-330-1m-cache-1-60-ghz-533-mhz-fsb.html [1] https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/products/42491/intel-desktop-board-d945gclf2.html > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > based ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 say anything in the public discusison channels, or generate _some_ sort of activity in other project channels (eg bugzilla, irc, whatever) then it is a perfectly reasonable assumption to make that you are not doing anything of general relevance to Fedora. > I'm pretty sure that I can point point out bugs in official Fedora > repository that were dormant for several years without any conclusion > and nobody dropped support for all those applications just for that > reason. Every Fedora release has packages dropped due to failures to compile or other problems that run afoul of packaging policies, with nobody stepping up to fix them. > 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. I'm sorry you feel that way. - Solomon -- Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org High Springs, FL ^^ (email/xmpp) ^^ Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 reasons, but because not enough work is getting done to support i686, because people aren't volunteering to do it (and actually doing the work). ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 12 years old, is in good condition and I'm completely satisfied with its performance for my needs. I wonder what owners of thin terminals will do if they used Fedora, especially if there are many of them. The cost of upgrading some old terminals for some school can be too high. It is probably very rare for someone to have just enough memory for a system to run reasonably using i686, but tank when using x86_64. If there is some key code that causes the problem, you might be able to rebuild that code to use 32 bit addresses and save enough memory to make things work reasonably. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 years without any conclusion and nobody dropped support for all those applications just for that reason. 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. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 that architecture is now deprived from using it on Fedora because some formalities were not met? And if I have no time to participate in that list, I can't fix problems myself? Because without that repository I'm forced to use other distribution. There were announcements on other lists. This issue was brought to the development list a long time ago. New people didn't do enough. Just being on a mailing list doesn't make things get done. People needed to fix problems or at least facilitate getting them fixed, and not enough of that happened. So it isn't just a formallity causing the problem. You can still use f30 until about May. It looks like CentOS 7 can be used with i686, so you could probably use that a bit longer if you wanted to stick with a similar distro. Someone has to do the work and most of Fedora's work gets done by volunteers. If no one volunteers for something, then that thing is unlikely to get done. I was willing to do some work on i686 when I was forced to use it, but shortly I won't be using any i686 systems and will be spending what little time I use for Fedora on things that are more important and more practical for me. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 services even to a people who are ready to accept most of that support burden themselves and I'm one of them. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 not met? And if I have no time to participate in > that list, I can't fix problems myself? Because without that > repository I'm forced to use other distribution. No, i686 was dropped for the same reason there was no traffic on the mailing list -- Nobody was getting any of the necessary work done. For the better part of two years. - Solomon -- Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org High Springs, FL ^^ (email/xmpp) ^^ Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 satisfied with its performance for my needs. I wonder what owners of thin terminals will do if they used Fedora, especially if there are many of them. The cost of upgrading some old terminals for some school can be too high. Maintaining my own distribution is a little too much for me at the moment. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 because some formalities were not met? And if I have no time to participate in that list, I can't fix problems myself? Because without that repository I'm forced to use other distribution. That's just... weird. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 by a miracle. I recognize that there is much less people interested in this architecture but it's much more than zero. I'm probably one of the few people still running Fedora on a machine that uses i686, that can't use x86_64. The machine is around 15 years old and is costly to get replacement parts for and I'm running out of spares. I was supposed to replace the machine last month, but needed another month to save up enough to buy the rest of the replacement. I've actually work with upstream to get kernel bugs fixed for this machine. Unfortunately I run rawhide and things got shut down a little sooner than I hoped, so I'm not getting updates right now and don't want to go back to f30 with the short horizon for retirement (though I did grab an f30 kernel). I don't think you are going to find many people who both run Fedora and have to use i686. There is a cost to keeping things running on i686 and it doesn't look like it is worth paying right now. And things are looking to get worse rather than better. You have options. You can switch to another distro that will support i686 for a while yet. Use f30 until it's EOL (or beyond if the machines are isolated). Or maintain your own distro. The tools for Fedora are open, so you could set up your own koji instance drawing from Fedora and applying your fixes where needed. Getting started will probably be hard, but once things are running you'll be OK until there is a key bug you can't get fixed. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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. -- Tomasz .. oo o. oo o. .o .o o. o. oo o. .. Torcz.. .o .o .o .o oo oo .o .. .. oo oo o.o.o. .o .. o. o. o. o. o. o. oo .. .. o. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 waiting for your email/phone call to help you with your issues, that's just a small part of software support, it's mostly making sure that bugs and primarily security issues get fixed and delivered to you (and believe me it's not such a sure thing among Linux distros), and if you've been using Fedora for 20 years, you have received a lot of that. And you fail to understand it's something the Fedora Project is currently not quite capable to deliver for x86. If you expect the Fedora Project to just build packages for x86 and throw them over the wall on users, then I'm sorry to disappoint you, but that's not how Fedora has ever worked and I hope it never will. So as others already suggested: if you want the x86 architecture back, revive the x86 SIG, gather enough volunteers, make sure you can meet expectations of support at least at the level of secondary architectures, create a proposal backed by enough committed volunteers, submit it to FESCo, and I'm pretty sure you'll have your beloved architecture back. Jiri ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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. Why I'm smelling a contradiction here? In short: the decision to drop i686 support is supported by contradicting statements, while at the same time if I want to be taken seriously, I should bring strong evidence. That's very objective discussion. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 working on Fedora... - Solomon -- Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org High Springs, FL ^^ (email/xmpp) ^^ Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 community relations over any technical reasons. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 that most things will still work. If it won't work I might try to fix it and contribute patches back. But without that repository I can't even try it in the first place. You are just pushing me and others away, so we should go use other distributions which provide ready to run builds. And I'm not talking about i686 *kernel* anywhere. We are talking about *userland* only. I'm running 64-bit CPU all along, but I have limited memory. Others could use laptops with restricted memory which would be a performance hit if they start using x86_64 userland. You are not providing any alternative but starting to build everything ourselves or stop using Fedora and move elsewhere. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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" quite differently than Fedora. > P.S. And what it's all supposed to do with "Linux is NOT about > choice"? This looks like just as an excuse to me for some other thing. s/some other/more relevant/ - Solomon -- Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org High Springs, FL ^^ (email/xmpp) ^^ Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
- 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 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 interested in this architecture but > it's much more than zero. > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Providing some imaginary numbers and anecdotes as facts doesn't really help the "I am right, you are wrong" style of debating that is on going for some time in this thread. No, Fedora hasn't failed to recognize something, it's a community project. If noone is interested enough to step up and help with the effort, the work will never be done, simple as that. -- Regards, Charalampos Stratakis Software Engineer Python Maintenance Team, Red Hat ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 on a level which was usual for RMS era it would be enough for me. I've used Linux on my own in many cases. The only thing that I expect from any Linux distribution is to just BUILD it for me. Because it's impossible to rebuild so many packages with my very limited resources. I'm not asking for full blow support, but leaving even semi-broken repository intact would be a great help for me and may be others who know from which side to use computers. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 interested in this architecture but it's much more than zero. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 maintaining 32-bit userland as much as I can. But I'm afraid that's not much. From my point of view the only support I need is that damn thing worked most of the time. And there no more bugs in i686 userland than in x86_64 one. If you really need so much patching than I simply don't understand why it still works on other supported 32-bit arches all over the world, e.g. ARM. P.S. And what it's all supposed to do with "Linux is NOT about choice"? This looks like just as an excuse to me for some other thing. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 work done. Feel free to revive the x86 SIG and start building a i686 kernel and work with releng to re-enable the i686 repos. Continuing this discussion will be fruitless for you and the thousands of subscribers that are not replying to you. There's a reason no one is replying. They are not interested. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 Space* is not the same as *Physical Memory*. I suggest you educate yourself on the difference between the two, as that distinction is perhaps the fundamental underpinning of memory management. - Solomon -- Solomon Peachy pizza at shaftnet dot org High Springs, FL ^^ (email/xmpp) ^^ Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur. signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
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 don't need to run a 64 bit system to get ASLR. > > > i686 app has only 4 GB of virtual address space (2 GB for user-space and > 2 GB for kernel space), so ASLR is ineffective. > > -- > Sincerely, > Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org) 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? ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 31 System-Wide Change proposal (late): No i686 Repositories
* 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 not true that 32-bit support is isolated. We will have to patch lots of code to support the new *_time64 system calls, and that will impact everyone, even for applications that are never run on 32-bit systems. (This assumes that we can magically fix the native linker issues on 32-bit architectures.) Thanks, Florian ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
