On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 09:33:24PM +0000, Robert Ancell wrote: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 4:41 AM Steve Langasek <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2016 at 08:18:54AM +0100, Martin Wimpress wrote: > > > Excuse the top posting, only have a phone available. > > > > > Ubuntu MATE works with a few organisations around the world, one in my > > own > > > country, that refurbish donated computers, install them with Ubuntu MATE > > > and give (or sell them for next to nothing) to schools, disadvantaged > > > families and people who otherwise wouldn't be able to afford a computer. > > > > > I'll get in touch with them and find how, or if, this decision would > > affect > > > them. > > > > For various reasons (e.g. compatibility with legacy 32-bit apps on the > > desktop; IoT devices running Ubuntu Core), we should not expect to be > > dropping i386 as an architecture from the archive before 18.04. > > > > Individual flavor communities should therefore feel comfortable making > > their > > own decision about whether to continue providing i386 images in 18.04, > > independent of what we decide for the Ubuntu Desktop and Server flavors - > > with the caveat that, since the forcing function for dropping these flavors > > is security supportability of key applications, community flavors should > > avoid representing to their users a level of support that they are in no > > position to deliver on. > > > > > It may be worth considering disabling i386 builds for individual packages > to reduce the support costs. That way the core packages can build for i386 > and be used in IoT systems while the graphical application stacks can stop > building for i386. There would be some challenges to negotiate overlap with > the flavours (i.e. MATE might want their stack i386 and Unity not) and a > practical way to do this (we don't want to have an Ubuntu version of the > packages that come from Debian with only a change to the "Architecture" > field in debian/control). > > --Robert
Doing so would prevent desktop users from installing binary 32bit packages that rely on Ubuntu's multi-arch support. I'm not sure how much of an issue this still is, given that a bunch of them finally have 64bit builds now, but it may still be a problem for a number of commercial software. -- Stéphane Graber Ubuntu developer http://www.ubuntu.com
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
-- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
