End of 32-bit support?

[Ralf Corsepius]

On 01/22/2015 04:52 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 20, 2015 at 10:52:30AM +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> But the secondary arches and the non-x86 arches have always been a
>> problem. To Non-RH Fedora packagers they are causing lags, delays
>> and are basically untestable - In short a waste of time.
>
> I don't think that's a fair representation of the project's interest in
> non-x86 architectures.

I don't agree.

> A lot of the interest in and work on secondary archs comes from non-Red
> Hatters, or from Red Hatters working in their spare time. (Of course,
> as RH often does, many of the high-output contributors end up applying
> for and getting RH jobs, skewing the picture.)
Well, I am observing quite a few people from major enterprises (RH 
business partners?) who are working on secondary archtectures, but I've 
very rarely (I don't recall any such incident) tripped over community 
folks who are working on them.

> Additionally, I'm not privy to Red Hat's architecture strategy, but as
> far as I know, 32 bit ARM — currently our only primary non-x86 arch! — is
> not of particular corporate interest.
It's obvious to me the aarch64 is RH's business interest.

> I also think it's a little unfair to frame this as a conflict, overall.
> It may be the case that Red Hat is less interested in paying people to
> work on 32-bit x86 (although I don't actually know that to be a fact).
> But this is just like any other contributor to the community — you
> can't make people do work they're not interested in.
Right, but that's not my point:

My points are:
- I once more feel pushed/tossed around by RH's interest and 
RH-Fedora-people who obviously don't properly separate RH and Community.
- Support for i386 falls out as a by-product at almost Zero-costs of the 
existing process.
- Making the i386 a secondary arch will cause additional costs and effort.

Ralf