On Sat, 2016-04-23 at 09:27 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> >>
> >> Just to this point - if we wanted to support the Baytrail tablets
> >> properly we should probably get 64-on-32 working. Allowing 32-bit
> UEFI
> >> installs probably isn't something we want to do officially.
> >
> >
> > Has t
On Apr 23, 2016 09:18, "Florian Weimer" wrote:
>
> On 08/13/2015 03:17 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 2015-08-04 at 10:47 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 10:40:28AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
"Ambivalent" is probably understated here. It's hard
On 08/13/2015 03:17 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2015-08-04 at 10:47 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 10:40:28AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
"Ambivalent" is probably understated here. It's hard to imagine
people securing i686 hardware these days to run a Workstation
Am 15.08.2015 um 14:50 schrieb Matthew Miller:
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 06:47:44AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Definitely. 10/15 years+ ago, [...]
[...]
Also, in those days, devs cared about efficiency. Nowadays, they
don't care as much,
People have been making this exact complaint since t
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 06:47:44AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Definitely. 10/15 years+ ago, [...]
[...]
> Also, in those days, devs cared about efficiency. Nowadays, they
> don't care as much,
People have been making this exact complaint since the 1970s. Probably
before.
--
Matthew Miller
On 08/14/2015 12:00 PM, Richard Z wrote:
I regularly use i686 and have not done a fresh install since years so
would not detect this. Maybe fresh installs aren't such a deal for i686
users
Well, from my experience, fresh installs on i686 are a major problem w/
Fedora, because Fedora's SW demand
On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 09:47:27AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> In February[2] we sent out an email highlighting that the kernel team
> was not going to treat i686 bugs as a priority. Since that time, we
> have held true to our word and have not focused on fixing i686 bugs at
> all. It seems that
On Tue, 2015-08-04 at 10:47 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 10:40:28AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> > "Ambivalent" is probably understated here. It's hard to imagine
> > people securing i686 hardware these days to run a Workstation
> > experience, after all.
>
> The ques
On 6 August 2015 at 10:04, Pete Travis wrote:
>
\
>>
>
> Perhaps the best approach, from a community perspective, would be to promote
> a spin to Edition status and recommend *that* for i686 or low resource
> desktop use cases.
>
> --Pete
>
That would require people volunteering to dedicate time
On Aug 4, 2015 9:40 AM, "Paul W. Frields" wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 09:47:27AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> [...snip...]
> > Perhaps it is time that we evaluate where i686 stands in Fedora more
> > closely. For a starting suggestion, I would recommend that we do not
> > treat it as a relea
On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 10:40:28 -0400,
"Paul W. Frields" wrote:
"Ambivalent" is probably understated here. It's hard to imagine
people securing i686 hardware these days to run a Workstation
experience, after all.
I still use i686 for my primary server, primary desktop and primary laptop.
On Tue, 2015-08-04 at 11:12 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Here's my perspective as an i686 Fedora user...
>
> I have a box (2009-ish) that's in use as a file/backup server. As
> such, I don't
> spend a lot of time futzing with it - it doesn't run rawhide, it
> rarely runs
> the prereleases unt
On 08/04/2015 05:12 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Paul W. Frields (sticks...@gmail.com) said:
Here's my perspective as an i686 Fedora user...
I have a box (2009-ish) that's in use as a file/backup server.
I have 3 i686 boxen.
2 are 2009-ish atom-netbook, one is a 2000-ish PIII-desktop.
As s
On 08/04/2015 08:38 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
A lot of the users of i686 that I know use it from live images or
installing live images which, and I've not followed the issue too
closely so might be a little off here, wouldn't have hit the bug that
was being seen by the installer side of things. A
>> > Perhaps it is time that we evaluate where i686 stands in Fedora more
>> > closely. For a starting suggestion, I would recommend that we do not
>> > treat it as a release blocking architecture. This is not the same as
>> > demotion to secondary architecture status. That has broader
>> > impl
Paul W. Frields (sticks...@gmail.com) said:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 09:47:27AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> [...snip...]
> > Perhaps it is time that we evaluate where i686 stands in Fedora more
> > closely. For a starting suggestion, I would recommend that we do not
> > treat it as a release bloc
On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 09:47:27AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
[...snip...]
> Perhaps it is time that we evaluate where i686 stands in Fedora more
> closely. For a starting suggestion, I would recommend that we do not
> treat it as a release blocking architecture. This is not the same as
> demotion
On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 10:40:28AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> "Ambivalent" is probably understated here. It's hard to imagine
> people securing i686 hardware these days to run a Workstation
> experience, after all.
The question, I think, is how much we want to prioritize the
"Workstation exp
Hello,
Over the past week, we've been dealing with a kernel bug[1] that
prevents i686 machines from booting. Help was requested and given,
and it has been excellent and most welcome. This email has no
reflection on that, and is instead focused on the reality of where
i686 stands today.
In Febru
19 matches
Mail list logo
