On 09. 03. 22 15:51, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 9:57 PM Miro Hrončok
<mhroncok(a)redhat.com> 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 of
> i686, not even to get rid of most of the i686 packages. Indeed, there are more
> sophisticated ways to do that -- OTOH volunteers don't seem to exactly pile up.
>
> I think this change proposal has a different goal in mind. A simpler goal. Goal
> that requires no volunteers:
>
> 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 clearly communicate: It is OK to drop this, you don't need to ask
> for permissions or file bugzillas, just make sure you don't break anything (and
> here's how you check if you are not breaking anything).
>
> Is that correct, Fabio?
>
> If so, I think it is actually a good thing to do. It won't solve the big
> elephant in the room, but it has the potential to ease packaging for some.
Yes. That's the whole point...
OK then, I can +1 that, but please: Make that more obvious in the proposal.
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok