i686 kernel bug priority plan

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Wed, 2015-02-25 at 14:30 +0100, drago01 wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 2:15 PM, Josh Boyer <
> jwboyer at fedoraproject.org> wrote:
> > Hello Fellow Contributors!
> > 
> > [...]
> > It's possible down the road that, if there is no community 
> > interest in i686, the project might look at other options such as 
> > making i686 a secondary architecture. This is not because we want 
> > to drive away 32-bit users; but we're passionate about making the 
> > Fedora kernel work well for the majority of our user base. This 
> > prioritization helps us get closer to that goal.
> 
> Just to make this clear because this has suggestion has been brought 
> up multiple times ... while there might be less interests in running 
> a i686 kernel the story is very different for i686 user space 
> (mostly libraries but also applications like wine) even on a x86_64 
> host kernel.
> 
> So don't draw a line from "no interests in i686 kernel" to "no 
> interesst in the i686 architecture and therefore it should be
> secondary" .. its not as simple as with a completely isolated 
> architecture like ppc.

Right, Josh isn't talking about retiring the i686 runtime 
(particularly in terms of multiarch support on x86_64). Merely that 
work on i686-specific bugs in the kernel are going to see less 
attention so they can focus their limited resources on bugs with a 
wider impact.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20150225/02a54953/attachment.sig>