Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 11:09 AM Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 6:05 PM Richard Shaw wrote: > > (snip) > > > I'll add some context to these. I'm currently the primary maintainer of > three major projects in the VFX stack, OpenImageIO, OpenColorIO, and > OpenEXR. Do we really

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 3/11/22 13:33, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 8:07 PM Bruno Wolff III wrote: >> >> On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 12:23:41 -0600, >> Bruno Wolff III wrote: >>> On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 09:06:01 -0600, >>> >>> The Fedora 36 beta is likely to slip because firefox was not building >>>

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 5:51 PM Yaakov Selkowitz wrote: (snip) > I don't see the opt-out as being "simple" at all, as IIUC all it would take is > one maintainer not paying close enough attention to reverse dependencies to > break the i686 buildroot. Not to mention that it ends up polluting the

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 8:07 PM Bruno Wolff III wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 12:23:41 -0600, > Bruno Wolff III wrote: > >On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 09:06:01 -0600, > > > >The Fedora 36 beta is likely to slip because firefox was not building > >successfully on i686, but was on other arches. >

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Fri, 2022-03-11 at 15:31 +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 8:41 AM Leigh Scott wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 2022-03-07 at 12:12 -0500, Ben Cotton wrote: > > > > > > Why isn't this as simple as: > > > > > > 1) Create an f37-multilib-build build tag with all supported arches

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Fri, Mar 11, 2022 at 8:41 AM Leigh Scott wrote: > > > On Mon, 2022-03-07 at 12:12 -0500, Ben Cotton wrote: > > > > Why isn't this as simple as: > > > > 1) Create an f37-multilib-build build tag with all supported arches + i686, > > and an f37-multilib{,-candidate} build targets to use it (with

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

> On Mon, 2022-03-07 at 12:12 -0500, Ben Cotton wrote: > > Why isn't this as simple as: > > 1) Create an f37-multilib-build build tag with all supported arches + i686, > and an f37-multilib{,-candidate} build targets to use it (with destination tag > of f37-updates-candidate); > > 2) Drop i686

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, 2022-03-07 at 12:12 -0500, Ben Cotton wrote: > == Detailed Description == > > Fedora does no longer ship any deliverables for i686, not even RPM > repositories for i686 are published any longer. The kernel package > itself also [[Changes/Stop Building i686 Kernels|dropped support for >

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 09:06:01AM -0600, Chris Adams wrote: > So I guess this is the part I don't really understand (and I guess why I > don't see this proposal as a "win") - how is i686 painful to package > maintainers for non-delivered packages? Maybe I'm just missing > something, but what

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Thu, Mar 10, 2022 at 9:07 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: Thanks for your feedback! > The word "encourage" is rather weird here. I am not a native speaker, but that > sound to me like we are agitating for active removals. Like we go to the > packagers and ask them: Could oyu please drop i686 from

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 09. 03. 22 18:05, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 5:55 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: (...) OK then, I can +1 that, but please: Make that more obvious in the proposal. Honest question: How do I do that? Do you have a suggestion? > Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 06:05:06PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 5:55 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > (...) > > > OK then, I can +1 that, but please: Make that more obvious in the proposal. > > Honest question: How do I do that? Do you have a suggestion? Drop this part:

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 19:58:30 -, Leigh Scott wrote: On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 09:06:01 -0600, Chris Adams That is a very poor excuse for a slip, why would any one need it? That is specified in the release criteria. I believe the rational is covered there if you are really

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

> On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 09:06:01 -0600, > Chris Adams > The Fedora 36 beta is likely to slip because firefox was not building > successfully on i686, but was on other arches. That is a very poor excuse for a slip, why would any one need it? Why not add an ExcludeArch to fix?

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 12:23:41 -0600, Bruno Wolff III wrote: On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 09:06:01 -0600, The Fedora 36 beta is likely to slip because firefox was not building successfully on i686, but was on other arches. It is actually more complicated than I remembered. Firefox needed a

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, Mar 09, 2022 at 09:06:01 -0600, Chris Adams wrote: So I guess this is the part I don't really understand (and I guess why I don't see this proposal as a "win") - how is i686 painful to package maintainers for non-delivered packages? Maybe I'm just missing something, but what causes

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 04:28:58PM -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > On 3/8/22 4:08 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > Perhaps you could share with the list how used/important wine.i686 is > > these days? Are most folks still using it? Slowly switching to > > wine.x86_64? > > Yes, wine.i686 is still

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 6:05 PM Richard Shaw wrote: (snip) > I'll add some context to these. I'm currently the primary maintainer of three > major projects in the VFX stack, OpenImageIO, OpenColorIO, and OpenEXR. Do we > really need i686/arm packages for these? No one is using the 32bit

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 5:55 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: (...) > OK then, I can +1 that, but please: Make that more obvious in the proposal. Honest question: How do I do that? Do you have a suggestion? The proposal already does not contain anything language that could be interpreted as "this will

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 10:09 AM Ben Beasley wrote: > The packaging effort is real; it’s just unevenly distributed across > different types of packages, so some packagers might not have noticed it. > > Packaging work that, with the demise of 32-bit ARM, can now be ascribed > purely to these

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 09. 03. 22 15:51, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 9:57 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: (snip) I think we are all misinterpreting the intention of this change proposal. We are suggesting better ways to get rid of i686. And the arguments are valid. However, I now think that this

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

The packaging effort is real; it’s just unevenly distributed across different types of packages, so some packagers might not have noticed it. Packaging work that, with the demise of 32-bit ARM, can now be ascribed purely to these generally-unused i686 packages includes: - As Fabio noted,

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 4:06 PM Chris Adams wrote: > > Once upon a time, Fabio Valentini said: > > Package maintainers who would benefit from dropping i686 from their > > packages probably already know that i686 is painful for them. > > So I guess this is the part I don't really understand (and I

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Once upon a time, Fabio Valentini said: > Package maintainers who would benefit from dropping i686 from their > packages probably already know that i686 is painful for them. So I guess this is the part I don't really understand (and I guess why I don't see this proposal as a "win") - how is i686

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 9:57 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: (snip) > I think we are all misinterpreting the intention of this change proposal. > > We are suggesting better ways to get rid of i686. And the arguments are valid. > However, I now think that this change proposal was not proposed to get rid

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tuesday, 08 March 2022 at 23:08, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 03:54:25PM -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > > On 3/7/22 2:03 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > A simpler solution would be to just default-off i686 and check-in some > > > marker file that indicates the package needs to

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 3:09 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > Perhaps you could share with the list how used/important wine.i686 is > these days? Are most folks still using it? Slowly switching to > wine.x86_64? I use 32-bit wine at work a *lot*, due to 3rd parties who still, in 2022, ship their

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 4:47 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 12:45:36PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Mon, 2022-03-07 at 11:25 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > So, I'll go ahead and be a bad guy here: > > > > > > Perhaps it's time to just retire i686 completely? > > > > > >

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 3/8/22 4:08 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote: Perhaps you could share with the list how used/important wine.i686 is these days? Are most folks still using it? Slowly switching to wine.x86_64? Yes, wine.i686 is still important in the year 2022. While I don't have a comprehensive list of all use cases

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 03:54:25PM -0600, Michael Cronenworth wrote: > On 3/7/22 2:03 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: > > A simpler solution would be to just default-off i686 and check-in some > > marker file that indicates the package needs to be built for multilib. > > This is how openSUSE does it today

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 01:55:47PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote: > > Rather than churn 20,000+ packages (plus add a new requirement for every > new package to include an ExcludeArch), why not address this at the > build system? > > Writing a script to generate a list of the buildroot plus multilib >

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 12:45:36PM -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Mon, 2022-03-07 at 11:25 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > So, I'll go ahead and be a bad guy here: > > > > Perhaps it's time to just retire i686 completely? > > > > Steam is available as a flatpak > > Do we know how the flatpak

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Once upon a time, Miro Hrončok said: > Give maintainers a blanket approval to exclude i686 if it bothers > them in any way and their package is a leaf i686 package. That is > it. Will this speed up eventual i686 retirement? Possibly, but not > much. But that is not the goal. The goal is to

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 07. 03. 22 20:14, Miro Hrončok wrote: On 07. 03. 22 19:30, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 7:22 PM Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Ben Cotton said: == Summary == Package maintainers are encouraged to actively stop building their packages for i686, especially if

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 08. 03. 22 21:43, Matthew Miller wrote: On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 02:11:14PM -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote: Rather than churn 20,000+ packages (plus add a new requirement for every new package to include an ExcludeArch), why not address this at the build system? This makes sense to me. I

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 02:11:14PM -0600, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > >Rather than churn 20,000+ packages (plus add a new requirement for every > >new package to include an ExcludeArch), why not address this at the build > >system? > > This makes sense to me. I don't think we should be changing

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 8 2022 at 01:55:47 PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote: Rather than churn 20,000+ packages (plus add a new requirement for every new package to include an ExcludeArch), why not address this at the build system? This makes sense to me. I don't think we should be changing spec files to

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Once upon a time, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek said: > What about the following instead: > - We start with a filter list that includes glibc, wine, and other > packages which we know should be excluded. > > - The script is run automatically and identifies a list of leaf packages. > > - For

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 12:12:49PM -0500, Ben Cotton wrote: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/EncourageI686LeafRemoval > == Scope == > > * Proposal owners: > > Proposal owners will provide convenience scripts for checking whether > a given package is a leaf package on i686, and will help

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 04:56:43PM +0100, Michal Schorm wrote: > Small technical concern: > > i686 packages depending on each other as follows: > A ---> B ---> C ---> D ---> E ---> F ---> G > When a maintainer of package "D" decides to stop building the package > "D" for i686 ("ExcludeArch:

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 15:04:21 -0500, Robbie Harwood wrote: Fabio Valentini writes: For example, as far as I know, you need the 32-bit host libraries for running 32-bit Windows applications in Wine. Dropping that would make our Wine packages almost useless, since a large fraction of

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 03:01:32PM -0500, Simo Sorce wrote: > On Mon, 2022-03-07 at 20:32 +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 8:25 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > > > > So, I'll go ahead and be a bad guy here: > > > > > > Perhaps it's time to just retire i686 completely? > > >

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Small technical concern: i686 packages depending on each other as follows: A ---> B ---> C ---> D ---> E ---> F ---> G When a maintainer of package "D" decides to stop building the package "D" for i686 ("ExcludeArch: %{ix86}"), how do we ensure the packages "E", "F", "G" will also adopt the

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 15:46:29 +0100 Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 2:05 PM Chris Adams wrote: > > > > Once upon a time, Fabio Valentini said: > > > One of the most problematic things are transitive BuildRequires: > > > Even if you know you need to keep libfoo.i686 and

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 2:05 PM Chris Adams wrote: > > Once upon a time, Fabio Valentini said: > > One of the most problematic things are transitive BuildRequires: > > Even if you know you need to keep libfoo.i686 and libbar.i686, how do > > you determine the transitive dependencies that are

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Once upon a time, Fabio Valentini said: > One of the most problematic things are transitive BuildRequires: > Even if you know you need to keep libfoo.i686 and libbar.i686, how do > you determine the transitive dependencies that are needed to keep > those packages around? > And by that, I don't

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 07/03/2022 18:12, Ben Cotton wrote: Package maintainers are encouraged to actively stop building their packages for i686, especially if supporting this architecture requires significant investment of time or resources, for no benefit. +1. Upstreams don't test i686 builds and ignore bugs.

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 07/03/2022 20:25, Kevin Fenzi wrote: Steam is available as a flatpak Steam Flatpak works too bad nowadays due to different DRM and pressure-vessel. Flatpak maintainers need to use hacks like sandbox disabling. -- Sincerely, Vitaly Zaitsev (vit...@easycoding.org)

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 11:17:20 +0100 Dan Horák wrote: > On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 09:40:16 + > Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 10:30:33AM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 10:14 AM Daniel P. Berrangé > > > wrote: > > > > > > (...) > > > > > > >

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, 8 Mar 2022 09:40:16 + Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 10:30:33AM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 10:14 AM Daniel P. Berrangé > > wrote: > > > > (...) > > > > > Isn't that just a standard RPM dep solving problem, at least for > > >

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 10:40 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: (...) > Oh yes, I simplified the build deps problem too much. Still > feels like a task that is ripe for machine automation. Yes. I will provide a script so package maintainers can do: $ can-i-add-excludearch-i686-to foo Which will

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 10:30:33AM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 10:14 AM Daniel P. Berrangé > wrote: > > (...) > > > Isn't that just a standard RPM dep solving problem, at least for > > stuff inside Fedora repos or well known 3rd party add-on repos ? > > It is not.

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 10:14 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: (...) > Isn't that just a standard RPM dep solving problem, at least for > stuff inside Fedora repos or well known 3rd party add-on repos ? It is not. There's no way to query recursive BuildRequires from repository metadata in one step

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

* Daniel P. Berrangé: > Isn't that just a standard RPM dep solving problem, at least for > stuff inside Fedora repos or well known 3rd party add-on repos ? The dependencies stored in the source RPM headers are architecture-specific. We'd have to rebuild source RPMs on i686 to get the correct

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Il 07/03/22 19:30, Fabio Valentini ha scritto: > On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 7:22 PM Chris Adams wrote: >> Once upon a time, Ben Cotton said: >>> == Summary == >>> >>> Package maintainers are encouraged to actively stop building their >>> packages for i686, especially if supporting this architecture

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 08, 2022 at 09:59:07AM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 9:11 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > > > (...) > > > How many examples of things like Wine & Steam do we actually have ? > > I feel it must be a pretty small list of things which are important > > to a

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 9:11 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > (...) > How many examples of things like Wine & Steam do we actually have ? > I feel it must be a pretty small list of things which are important > to a large number of users and yet need 32-bit. > > If we only consider Wine & Steam, we

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 9:09 AM Petr Pisar wrote: > (...) > Do you know that Packaging Guidelines require for each of this exclusion > creating a tracking bug for the affected package in Bugzilla > ? > > We

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 08:32:13PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 8:25 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > > So, I'll go ahead and be a bad guy here: > > > > Perhaps it's time to just retire i686 completely? > > > > Steam is available as a flatpak, and old software thats 32bit

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

V Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 07:30:44PM +0100, Fabio Valentini napsal(a): > On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 7:22 PM Chris Adams wrote: > > > > Once upon a time, Ben Cotton said: > > > == Summary == > > > > > > Package maintainers are encouraged to actively stop building their > > > packages for i686,

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 3/7/22 2:03 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: A simpler solution would be to just default-off i686 and check-in some marker file that indicates the package needs to be built for multilib. This is how openSUSE does it today with the baselibs.conf file:

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Neal Gompa writes: > On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 3:05 PM Robbie Harwood wrote: >> >> Fabio Valentini writes: >> >> > For example, as far as I know, you need the 32-bit host libraries for >> > running 32-bit Windows applications in Wine. Dropping that would make >> > our Wine packages almost

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 3:46 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > > On Mon, 2022-03-07 at 11:25 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > So, I'll go ahead and be a bad guy here: > > > > Perhaps it's time to just retire i686 completely? > > > > Steam is available as a flatpak > > Do we know how the flatpak is built

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, 2022-03-07 at 11:25 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > So, I'll go ahead and be a bad guy here: > > Perhaps it's time to just retire i686 completely? > > Steam is available as a flatpak Do we know how the flatpak is built and updated? Would Fedora ending i686 support affect *that* work? --

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 3:05 PM Robbie Harwood wrote: > > Fabio Valentini writes: > > > For example, as far as I know, you need the 32-bit host libraries for > > running 32-bit Windows applications in Wine. Dropping that would make > > our Wine packages almost useless, since a large fraction of

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Fabio Valentini writes: > For example, as far as I know, you need the 32-bit host libraries for > running 32-bit Windows applications in Wine. Dropping that would make > our Wine packages almost useless, since a large fraction of Windows > software still isn't 64-bit. Would it be possible to

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 2:15 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 07. 03. 22 19:30, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 7:22 PM Chris Adams wrote: > >> > >> Once upon a time, Ben Cotton said: > >>> == Summary == > >>> > >>> Package maintainers are encouraged to actively stop building

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, 2022-03-07 at 20:32 +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 8:25 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > > So, I'll go ahead and be a bad guy here: > > > > Perhaps it's time to just retire i686 completely? > > > > Steam is available as a flatpak, and old software thats 32bit only

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 8:15 PM Miro Hrončok wrote: > Thanks for your feedback, I'll respond inline. > > This begs several questions that would probably need to be clarified e.g. in > the packaging guidelines. For example: > > -- > > I am adding a brand new package to multiple Fedora

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 07. 03. 22 20:25, Kevin Fenzi wrote: So, I'll go ahead and be a bad guy here: Perhaps it's time to just retire i686 completely? Steam is available as a flatpak, and old software thats 32bit only and can't be rebuilt could just be run from a f36 container? This would save us: * all the

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 8:25 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > So, I'll go ahead and be a bad guy here: > > Perhaps it's time to just retire i686 completely? > > Steam is available as a flatpak, and old software thats 32bit only and > can't be rebuilt could just be run from a f36 container? > > This would

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

So, I'll go ahead and be a bad guy here: Perhaps it's time to just retire i686 completely? Steam is available as a flatpak, and old software thats 32bit only and can't be rebuilt could just be run from a f36 container? This would save us: * all the builder resources * all the multilib

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On 07. 03. 22 19:30, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 7:22 PM Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Ben Cotton said: == Summary == Package maintainers are encouraged to actively stop building their packages for i686, especially if supporting this architecture requires

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Once upon a time, Fabio Valentini said: > As far as I can tell, any approach more sophisticated than that (like > automatically determining the i686 packages we *need*) would require > significantly more work, and probably be more error-prone, introduce > more friction, and make it harder to

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

On Mon, Mar 7, 2022 at 7:22 PM Chris Adams wrote: > > Once upon a time, Ben Cotton said: > > == Summary == > > > > Package maintainers are encouraged to actively stop building their > > packages for i686, especially if supporting this architecture requires > > significant investment of time or

Re: F37 Change: Encourage Dropping Unused / Leaf Packages on i686 (Self-Contained Change proposal)

Once upon a time, Ben Cotton said: > == Summary == > > Package maintainers are encouraged to actively stop building their > packages for i686, especially if supporting this architecture requires > significant investment of time or resources, for no benefit. This will > not apply to packages