i686 kernel bug priority plan

[Stephen Gallagher]

On Wed, 2015-02-25 at 14:01 +0000, Peter Robinson wrote:
> > > This is an opportunity for community members for whom i686 is a 
> > > passion to join the team to participate in the bugfixing 
> > > required. We previously called out the need for assistance[2], 
> > > but had no substantial response. We hope that being transparent 
> > > about our priorities will prompt interested community members to 
> > > help. If you are interested to help, here are some resources to 
> > > get started:
> > <snip>
> > 
> > Given our past history with passive requests for help, I think it 
> > might be beneficial to put a time limit on things. For example, if 
> > no i686 Kernel SIG steps up and agrees to handle bugs on that 
> > platform, we should strongly consider demoting i686 to secondary 
> > architecture for installation media at the Fedora 23 branch point 
> > (about six months from now).
> > 
> > Note: I'm only suggesting that we would demote the kernel and 
> > install media, *NOT* the 32-bit runtime libraries on an x86_64 
> > system; we would still need to be building those.
> 
> How do you propose demoting to secondary only the kernel/install 
> without the userspace? Do you mean de-emphasise the i686 bit 
> platform?
> 

Well, that was more a political and rel-eng statement than a technical 
one. Effectively, we'd not build the kernel package or do release-
blocking composes of i686 media. However, the Koji build-system would 
still have to be capable of producing i686 builds as a primary 
architecture. So yes, from a purely technical standpoint, it's a muddy 
statement.
-------------- 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/ab65d668/attachment.sig>