default file system, was: Comparison to Workstation Technical Specification

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Wed, 26 Feb 2014 16:03:47 -0500
Bill Nottingham <notting at redhat.com> wrote:

> Kevin Fenzi (kevin at scrye.com) said: 
> > Another aspect of xfs we may want to investigate and get feedback
> > from filesystem folks is how well xfs works on 32bit these days. 
> > 
> > RHEL7 doesn't have a 32bit version in their beta, so they only need
> > to support 64bit xfs. Does the fact that we expect to have 32bit
> > workstation and/or server weigh into this decision any?
> 
> We expect to have a 32-bit workstation or server? 
> 
> Not trying to troll, but I don't know that any of these were
> specifically discussed or specified in the products - are there any
> arches where Fedora currently exists that we don't necessarily care
> about having a particular product on? (For example, if you expand to
> secondary arches, I'd question the idea of s390 Workstation.)
> 
> Bill, who does have a 32-bit x86 server under his home desk...

Yeah, I don't know. That would be a good thing to decide for: 

a) each of the products. 

b) fedora in general

c) spins

kevin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/desktop/attachments/20140226/5f1dd163/attachment.sig>