On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 4:06 PM Chris Adams <linux(a)cmadams.net> wrote:
Once upon a time, Fabio Valentini <decathorpe(a)gmail.com> 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 painful to package
maintainers for non-delivered packages? Maybe I'm just missing
something, but what causes issues?
The problem is that those packages are painful to *build*.
We don't ship most of them at all, but they're still *built*.
And given limitations of 32-bit architectures (especially per-process
and total memory) and ever-more-complex software, this is starting to
hit more and more packages.
For example, I already had to limit functionality or quality of
debuginfo of some of my packages because otherwise they wouldn't
compile in 32-bit environments *at all*.
This is what's *painful* and makes no sense: Having to deal with
architecture limitations, but for architectures where we don't even
ship the resulting packages.
Fabio