i686 kernel bug priority plan
sgallagh at redhat.com
Wed Feb 25 13:47:55 UTC 2015
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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
More information about the devel