Ralf Mardorf schreef op 18-09-2016 7:19:

Perhaps the data is already there, but not in the way you wish. Maybe
it's a complete step into another direction. It might be just the first
step, of other steps, that maybe will follow one after the other.

I'm not sure what you are on, or on about...

I am sure you are talking about packaging i386-32-bit apps as "snaps"?

A super wild ass guess http://snapcraft.io/ . Since you like data, at
least by Arch it never ever will be adapted. Mentioning Arch, just
because it's available by the Arch user repository and got a single
vote there, is confronted with alternatives to snapcraft, that are much
more accepted outside of the Ubuntu community. Let alone that for
Archers the complete approach is less interesting at all. Following
Arch mailing lists, I know what I'm talking about. OTOH if you follow
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/snapcraft you would notice
that it's a pet issue of Mark Shuttleworth. Note, I do _not_ claim that
there are plans to completely switch to the snap approach, I just want
to point out, that in the back-room there possibly are thoughts about
completely different approaches.

That won't install Ubuntu onto a 32-bit system, now will it.

Even if a decision is made (ever) to transition all 32-bit packages to a snaps system so that ordinary 64-bit people can still use them that will probably be rife with problems (will non-snap 32-bit apps be able to use snap 32-bit libraries?) that doesn't mean it would be the correct approach, nor that it would be a sane approach to lessen the development or packaging burden, particularly not of the requirement to test ISOs? Well from a certain point of view if you can push everything into a snaps system....

But at the same time most people probably don't want it, and....

Where is the data you mention? You vagely hint at its existence. But unless you and I both know it, any discussion about it will be void, because you are still making assumptions here and allusions.

You allude that the "data exists" but that it would point in the direction of providing snaps.

Oh, do you know? Or is that just your wild guess based on infinite faith in the wisdom of those who make the decisions.

There is not a single number in your post. Not even the number 32.

Just saying that wild allusions to the existence of never-seen data do not cut the mark here, not even the Mark Shuttleworth mark ;-).

And it gives me an even stronger impression, if you mention that here in such a way, that the powers that be ... err.... the people that make the decisions do not really want other people to have the same kind of data?

You can fight about non-existent data all you want but unless you have some you won't make a dent in a pack of butter and any statement anyone can make, either pro or against, will be largely ineffective.

They remain wild guesses and I maintain that if the will had been there (or the honesty and fairness, perhaps) with sufficient transparency people could have seen that really according to the numbers and solutions and creative solutions available, providing 32-bit ISOs (not necessarily talking about packages here) would remain a low-cost proposition.

This eagerness to dump lesser-used alternatives is, I believe, not based on facts.

Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: 

Reply via email to