Fedora 23 Server: Fate of i686?

[Stephen Gallagher]

One thing that came up near the end of today's Server SIG meeting was the question of
whether to support Server Roles as Docker containers in Fedora 23. The primary reason for
holding off on this in the past was that only x86_64 systems could run Docker. This left
i686 and armv7hl (our other two primary architectures) out in the cold if we went this
path.

However, in recent months, support for Docker has been added to armv7hl. With now only one
of Fedora's primary architectures lacking Docker support, it's time to reconsider.
There are some strong arguments in favor of containerizing the Server Roles, notably the
ability to update the Fedora Server platform and the roles independently. I think
we'll likely experiment with creating a containerized Role during the Fedora 23
development phase.

Of course, with i686 being the only outlier, it begs an obvious question: Is i686
interesting to us in Fedora Server? I'm not discussing Fedora as a whole: there's
plenty of value in supporting i686 for Workstation and for other spins, but it might not
be as interesting to this space. The most common reason for the i686 argument is for the
repurposing of old hardware, but I have trouble seeing much old hardware being used for
Server tasks these days (at least, hardware so old that it cannot run the 64-bit
version).

I'd like to propose that we stop shipping Fedora Server install media for i686 in
Fedora 23. It would still be possible to install the majority of the package set by using
the (planned) generic netinstall image in Fedora 23, so if someone *really* wanted a
32-bit version minus the Docker bits, they could get it.

Thoughts? Concerns?

This isn't a request for a formal vote (yet). I just want to hear what people think
about this idea.

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 5 May 2015 at 10:08, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  One thing that came up near the end of today's Server SIG meeting
> was the question of whether to support Server Roles as Docker containers in Fedora 23. The
> primary reason for holding off on this in the past was that only x86_64 systems could run
> Docker. This left i686 and armv7hl (our other two primary architectures) out in the cold
> if we went this path.
>
>  However, in recent months, support for Docker has been added to armv7hl. With now only
> one of Fedora's primary architectures lacking Docker support, it's time to
> reconsider. There are some strong arguments in favor of containerizing the Server Roles,
> notably the ability to update the Fedora Server platform and the roles independently. I
> think we'll likely experiment with creating a containerized Role during the Fedora 23
> development phase.
>
>  Of course, with i686 being the only outlier, it begs an obvious question: Is i686
> interesting to us in Fedora Server? I'm not discussing Fedora as a whole: there's
> plenty of value in supporting i686 for Workstation and for other spins, but it might not
> be as interesting to this space. The most common reason for the i686 argument is for the
> repurposing of old hardware, but I have trouble seeing much old hardware being used for
> Server tasks these days (at least, hardware so old that it cannot run the 64-bit
> version).
>  
So since server is the only version which isn't live only (eg the one
with the standard dvd.iso) this might be affecting more of Fedora as a
whole than you think. 'Modest proposals' aside.. I would make sure you
announce this very publically to get feedback (which you will). This
way you don't end up in news article about how insensitive you are to
the poor or have a campaign 3/4 of the way through 23 to get it
reversed.


>  I'd like to propose that we stop shipping Fedora Server install
> media for i686 in Fedora 23. It would still be possible to install the majority of the
> package set by using the (planned) generic netinstall image in Fedora 23, so if someone
> *really* wanted a 32-bit version minus the Docker bits, they could get it.
>  
Most of the i686 traffic I see is in places where networks are not the
greatest so trying to install via net may not be what people will
want. Personally I believe a i686 community will need to be built up
to deal with this problem but it is a potential argument of why you
'cant stop'.


>  Thoughts? Concerns?
>
>  This isn't a request for a formal vote (yet). I just want to hear what people think
> about this idea.
>  _______________________________________________
>  server mailing list
>  server(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/server 


-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.

[John Unland]

On 5 May 2015 at 10:08, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
> > One thing that came up near the end of today's Server SIG
> meeting was the question of whether to support Server Roles as Docker containers in Fedora
> 23. The primary reason for holding off on this in the past was that only x86_64 systems
> could run Docker. This left i686 and armv7hl (our other two primary architectures) out in
> the cold if we went this path.
> >  
> > However, in recent months, support for Docker has been
> added to armv7hl. With now only one of Fedora's primary architectures lacking Docker
> support, it's time to reconsider. There are some strong arguments in favor of
> containerizing the Server Roles, notably the ability to update the Fedora Server platform
> and the roles independently. I think we'll likely experiment with creating a
> containerized Role during the Fedora 23 development phase.
> >  
> > Of course, with i686 being the only outlier, it begs an
> obvious question: Is i686 interesting to us in Fedora Server? I'm not discussing
> Fedora as a whole: there's plenty of value in supporting i686 for Workstation and for
> other spins, but it might not be as interesting to this space. The most common reason for
> the i686 argument is for the repurposing of old hardware, but I have trouble seeing much
> old hardware being used for Server tasks these days (at least, hardware so old that it
> cannot run the 64-bit version).
> > 
> So since server is the only version which isn't live only (eg the
> one 
with the standard dvd.iso) this might be affecting more of Fedora as a
whole than you think. 'Modest proposals' aside.. I would make sure you
announce this very publically to get feedback (which you will). This
way you don't end up in news article about how insensitive you are to
the poor or have a campaign 3/4 of the way through 23 to get it
reversed.
>  
>> I'd like to propose that we stop shipping Fedora Server install media for
i686 in Fedora 23. It would still be possible to install the majority of the package set
by using the (planned) generic netinstall image in Fedora 23, so if someone *really*
wanted a 32-bit version minus the Docker bits, they could get it.
>
>  
> Most of the i686 traffic I see is in places where networks are not the
greatest so trying to install via net may not be what people will
want. Personally I believe a i686 community will need to be built up
to deal with this problem but it is a potential argument of why you
'cant stop'.
>  
I'll start off with the i686 stuff, I think i686 is still relevant.
But we should just keep it in the netinstall image for the F23. I
could also see it being used for SMB's that are on a budget and need
to use old hardware that's still i686 based. As for Docker and
containerizing the roles, I second a proposal. Sidenote: Been busy
lately with finals and getting a internship so I've been completely
inactive to the Server SIG.

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> On 5 May 2015 at 10:08, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
> > One thing that came up near the end of today's Server SIG
> meeting was the question of whether to support Server Roles as Docker containers in Fedora
> 23. The primary reason for holding off on this in the past was that only x86_64 systems
> could run Docker. This left i686 and armv7hl (our other two primary architectures) out in
> the cold if we went this path.
> >  
> > However, in recent months, support for Docker has been
> added to armv7hl. With now only one of Fedora's primary architectures lacking Docker
> support, it's time to reconsider. There are some strong arguments in favor of
> containerizing the Server Roles, notably the ability to update the Fedora Server platform
> and the roles independently. I think we'll likely experiment with creating a
> containerized Role during the Fedora 23 development phase.
> >  
> > Of course, with i686 being the only outlier, it begs an
> obvious question: Is i686 interesting to us in Fedora Server? I'm not discussing
> Fedora as a whole: there's plenty of value in supporting i686 for Workstation and for
> other spins, but it might not be as interesting to this space. The most common reason for
> the i686 argument is for the repurposing of old hardware, but I have trouble seeing much
> old hardware being used for Server tasks these days (at least, hardware so old that it
> cannot run the 64-bit version).
> > 
>  
> So since server is the only
version which isn't live only (eg the one
> with the standard dvd.iso) this might be affecting more of Fedora as a
> whole than you think. 'Modest proposals' aside.. I would make sure you
> announce this very publically to get feedback (which you will). This
> way you don't end up in news article about how insensitive you are to
> the poor or have a campaign 3/4 of the way through 23 to get it
> reversed.
>  
>  
>> I'd like to propose
that we stop shipping Fedora Server install media for i686 in Fedora 23. It would still be
possible to install the majority of the package set by using the (planned) generic
netinstall image in Fedora 23, so if someone *really* wanted a 32-bit version minus the
Docker bits, they could get it.
>
>  
>  
> Most of the i686 traffic I see
is in places where networks are not the
> greatest so trying to install via net may not be what people will
> want. Personally I believe a i686 community will need to be built up
> to deal with this problem but it is a potential argument of why you
> 'cant stop'.
>  
>  
>> Thoughts? Concerns?
>
>  
>> This isn't a request for a formal vote (yet). I
just want to hear what people think about this idea.
>> _______________________________________________
>> server mailing list
>> server(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/server
>  
>  
>  
> --
> Stephen J Smoogen.
> _______________________________________________
> server mailing list
> server(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/server

[Dennis Gilmore]

On Tuesday, May 05, 2015 12:08:10 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>  One thing that came up near the end of today's Server SIG meeting
> was the
>  question of whether to support Server Roles as Docker containers in Fedora
>  23. The primary reason for holding off on this in the past was that only
>  x86_64 systems could run Docker. This left i686 and armv7hl (our other two
>  primary architectures) out in the cold if we went this path. 
There is no technical reason that i686 does not have docker builds.

Dennis

>  However, in recent months, support for Docker has been added to
> armv7hl.
>  With now only one of Fedora's primary architectures lacking Docker support,
>  it's time to reconsider. There are some strong arguments in favor of
>  containerizing the Server Roles, notably the ability to update the Fedora
>  Server platform and the roles independently. I think we'll likely
>  experiment with creating a containerized Role during the Fedora 23
>  development phase.
>  
>  Of course, with i686 being the only outlier, it begs an obvious question: Is
>  i686 interesting to us in Fedora Server? I'm not discussing Fedora as a
>  whole: there's plenty of value in supporting i686 for Workstation and for
>  other spins, but it might not be as interesting to this space. The most
>  common reason for the i686 argument is for the repurposing of old hardware,
>  but I have trouble seeing much old hardware being used for Server tasks
>  these days (at least, hardware so old that it cannot run the 64-bit
>  version).
>  
>  I'd like to propose that we stop shipping Fedora Server install media for
>  i686 in Fedora 23. It would still be possible to install the majority of
>  the package set by using the (planned) generic netinstall image in Fedora
>  23, so if someone *really* wanted a 32-bit version minus the Docker bits,
>  they could get it.
>  
>  Thoughts? Concerns?
>  
>  This isn't a request for a formal vote (yet). I just want to hear what
>  people think about this idea.
>  _______________________________________________
>  server mailing list
>  server(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/server

[Stephen Gallagher]

----- Original Message -----
>  From: "Dennis Gilmore" <dennis(a)ausil.us&gt;
>  To: server(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  Sent: Tuesday, May 5, 2015 3:00:19 PM
>  Subject: Re: Fedora 23 Server: Fate of i686?
>  
>  On Tuesday, May 05, 2015 12:08:10 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>  > One thing that came up near the end of today's Server SIG meeting was the
>  > question of whether to support Server Roles as Docker containers in Fedora
>  > 23. The primary reason for holding off on this in the past was that only
>  > x86_64 systems could run Docker. This left i686 and armv7hl (our other two
>  > primary architectures) out in the cold if we went this path.
>  
>  There is no technical reason that i686 does not have docker builds.
>   

If that is the case, why are there no i686 builds? According to the Package Guidelines[1]
"ExcludeArch should only be set when the architecture is not relevant for the
package, the package is non-functional on the architecture, or the code does not compile
cleanly for the architecture." Given that a lot of long-term packagers are working on
Docker, I'd be surprised to learn that not building it on i686 is accidental.

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures#ExcludeArch_.26_ExclusiveArch

[Matthew Miller]

On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 03:04:17PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>  If that is the case, why are there no i686 builds? According to the
>  Package Guidelines[1] "ExcludeArch should only be set when the
>  architecture is not relevant for the package, the package is
>  non-functional on the architecture, or the code does not compile
>  cleanly for the architecture." Given that a lot of long-term
>  packagers are working on Docker, I'd be surprised to learn that not
>  building it on i686 is accidental. 
Some combination of "not relevant" and "non-functional", in that
Docker
images as envisioned and provided by Docker upstream have no concept of
architecture and are always x86_64.

-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
Fedora Project Leader

[Matthew Miller]

On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 04:47:53PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>  Some combination of "not relevant" and
> "non-functional", in that Docker
>  images as envisioned and provided by Docker upstream have no concept of
>  architecture and are always x86_64. 
I'm not sayin' that that's _good_, just explaining the background.


-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
Fedora Project Leader

[Josh Boyer]

On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 4:48 PM, Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>  On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 04:47:53PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > Some combination of "not relevant" and "non-functional", in that
> Docker
> > images as envisioned and provided by Docker upstream have no concept of
> > architecture and are always x86_64.
>
>  I'm not sayin' that that's _good_, just explaining the background. 
I'd say it's good.  Just because you can build everything for every
architecture doesn't mean you _should_.  People seem to ignore the
value of focus sometimes.

josh

[Matthew Miller]

On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 04:58:13PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>  >> Some combination of "not relevant" and
> "non-functional", in that Docker
>  >> images as envisioned and provided by Docker upstream have no concept of
>  >> architecture and are always x86_64.
>  > I'm not sayin' that that's _good_, just explaining the background.
>  I'd say it's good.  Just because you can build everything for every
>  architecture doesn't mean you _should_.  People seem to ignore the
>  value of focus sometimes. 
Absolutely.

*That* said, if Fedora Server wanted to deliver roles via Docker
containers, I presume that those containers would be distributed from
Fedora infrastructure in some way, rather than pulled from the wild
west of the upstream Docker Hub. And we could make that work for
multiple architectures.

-- 
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
Fedora Project Leader

[Stephen Gallagher]

----- Original Message -----
>  From: "Matthew Miller" <mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org&gt;
>  To: server(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  Sent: Friday, May 8, 2015 11:35:13 AM
>  Subject: Re: Fedora 23 Server: Fate of i686?
>  
>  On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 04:58:13PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>  > >> Some combination of "not relevant" and
> "non-functional", in that Docker
>  > >> images as envisioned and provided by Docker upstream have no concept of
>  > >> architecture and are always x86_64.
>  > > I'm not sayin' that that's _good_, just explaining the background.
>  > I'd say it's good.  Just because you can build everything for every
>  > architecture doesn't mean you _should_.  People seem to ignore the
>  > value of focus sometimes.
>  
>  Absolutely.
>  
>  *That* said, if Fedora Server wanted to deliver roles via Docker
>  containers, I presume that those containers would be distributed from
>  Fedora infrastructure in some way, rather than pulled from the wild
>  west of the upstream Docker Hub. And we could make that work for
>  multiple architectures.
>   

Actually, the way I had envisioned it involved creating containers from Dockerfiles
directly (so we can take advantage of the latest updates at the time of creation and so
that they can be generated without access to an external network, so long as they have
access to dnf). So I suppose with this in mind, we probably could support these containers
in Fedora Server on each of the available architectures, provided someone is willing to
build docker for i686.

[Paul Howarth]

On 05/05/15 21:47, Matthew Miller wrote:
>  On Tue, May 05, 2015 at 03:04:17PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> > If that is the case, why are there no i686 builds? According to the
> > Package Guidelines[1] "ExcludeArch should only be set when the
> > architecture is not relevant for the package, the package is
> > non-functional on the architecture, or the code does not compile
> > cleanly for the architecture." Given that a lot of long-term
> > packagers are working on Docker, I'd be surprised to learn that not
> > building it on i686 is accidental.
>
>  Some combination of "not relevant" and "non-functional", in that
> Docker
>  images as envisioned and provided by Docker upstream have no concept of
>  architecture and are always x86_64. 
So what's happening with armv7hl then?

Paul.

[Miloslav Trmač]

Hello,
>  Of course, with i686 being the only outlier, it begs an obvious
> question: Is
>  i686 interesting to us in Fedora Server? I'm not discussing Fedora as a
>  whole: there's plenty of value in supporting i686 for Workstation and for
>  other spins, but it might not be as interesting to this space. 
I would be fine with Server deciding not to worry about i686; OTOH I think this does
impact the “Fedora as a whole” situation.  i686 as a primary architecture imposes work on
maintainers to make sure that server-related packages work on i686; so if we are fine with
not supporting servers on i686, we should perhaps also be fine with not requiring
server-related packages to work on i686 in the wider Fedora universe, and so we should
drop this burden.

Unless the argument goes that the Server Product target audience is more likely to have
fresh hardware and the non-Product Fedora users are more likely to reuse something old,
which I guess is plausible enough…
    Mirek

[Dennis Gilmore]

On Tuesday, May 05, 2015 12:08:10 PM Stephen Gallagher wrote:
>  One thing that came up near the end of today's Server SIG meeting
> was the
>  question of whether to support Server Roles as Docker containers in Fedora
>  23. The primary reason for holding off on this in the past was that only
>  x86_64 systems could run Docker. This left i686 and armv7hl (our other two
>  primary architectures) out in the cold if we went this path.
>  
>  However, in recent months, support for Docker has been added to armv7hl.
>  With now only one of Fedora's primary architectures lacking Docker support,
>  it's time to reconsider. There are some strong arguments in favor of
>  containerizing the Server Roles, notably the ability to update the Fedora
>  Server platform and the roles independently. I think we'll likely
>  experiment with creating a containerized Role during the Fedora 23
>  development phase.
>  
>  Of course, with i686 being the only outlier, it begs an obvious question: Is
>  i686 interesting to us in Fedora Server? I'm not discussing Fedora as a
>  whole: there's plenty of value in supporting i686 for Workstation and for
>  other spins, but it might not be as interesting to this space. The most
>  common reason for the i686 argument is for the repurposing of old hardware,
>  but I have trouble seeing much old hardware being used for Server tasks
>  these days (at least, hardware so old that it cannot run the 64-bit
>  version).
>  
>  I'd like to propose that we stop shipping Fedora Server install media for
>  i686 in Fedora 23. It would still be possible to install the majority of
>  the package set by using the (planned) generic netinstall image in Fedora
>  23, so if someone *really* wanted a 32-bit version minus the Docker bits,
>  they could get it.
>  
>  Thoughts? Concerns? 
Another Thought I had last night was secondary arches. there is a desire to 
have docker working on them all. and a long term desire to have aarch64 be 
primary arch, but right now all Secondary target Server as their primary 
deliverable, but none of them support Docker.  There is a desire and some test 
builds using gcc-go to have Docker work on them. but it is likely wise to 
consider how the secondary arches are supported when deciding how to do things 
going forward.

Dennis