Call for agenda for Workstation WG meeting 2015-Aug-05

[drago01]

On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 10:49 PM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Paul W. Frields <stickster at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 12:58:20PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>> On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Matthew Miller
>>> <mattdm at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>>> > On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 11:55:56AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
>>> >> > But surely these 32-bit tablets aren't the only good place where these
>>> >> > things can be worked on?
>>> >> To clarify, Bastien is talking about tablets that have 64-bit CPUs and
>>> >> 64-bit kernels, but 32-bit UEFI firmware.  Not i686 tablets.  Which is
>>> >> actually pretty terrible in its own right, but still distinct from a
>>> >> 32-bit tablet.
>>> >
>>> > Ah, okay, thanks. How does *that* fit in with kernel team's plans?
>>>
>>> It mostly doesn't impact us.  We already enable EFI_MIXED in the
>>> kernel.  The remaining work is in shim and grub afaik.
>>>
>>> (Barring bugs and such of course.)
>>
>> So AIUI so far, there's no reason from the Workstation POV an i686
>> tree/distro is strictly needed.  I'm assuming no one is proposing
>> doing away with i686 userspace packages.  (We would certainly care
>
> Not presently.  Though full secondary arch status would imply that (or
> we'd have to redefine what secondary arch meant if we wanted to cover
> multilib like RHEL).
>
>> about that, for example because of prepackaged 32-bit software.)
>
> Yes... but probably less so than you think.  Fedora doesn't exactly
> have a strong ISV presence and maybe this docker/container thing could
> help there anyway.

Well that's the reason why "i686 as secondary arch" is a bad idea.
Not creating i686 media (and kernel) I could agree with but no i686
packages at all? Not really it would break a lot of third party (pre
compiled apps) out there (skype, some steam games, ... ).