On Wed, Jun 6, 2018 at 2:09 PM, Florian Weimer <fwei...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 06/04/2018 06:55 PM, Jeff Backus wrote: > > Thanks for the insight. Yes, I can see the advantages. However, have >> things really gotten so bad that it justifies ejecting part of the >> community? >> > > The cost of i686 support is not insignificant. Most of that happens > upstream (like features only getting accepted when there's an i386/i686 > implementation). There's little we can do about that, but: > > In fedora, we are also a point of contact for weird bugs which someone > needs to triage. I really don't want to do that, but due to the lack of > secondary architectures, I'm often forced to because i686 breakage brings > development on architectures which I actually care about to a halt. > Makes sense. Are these bugs mostly related to instruction set, size of int, or something else? (more for my curiosity, don't spend time looking) I can justify this work if it helps downstream (so that we can be confident > that customers will be able to run their legacy software going forward). > But with the current divergence in build flags, it is fairly questionable > whether my work can deliver such a benefit, and that is frustrating. > Yes, I I'm sure it is! I can appreciate the desire to consolidate configurations. jeff -- Jeff Backus jeff.bac...@gmail.com http://github.com/jsbackus
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/KQHF2MSR2HYFXZ6JWWK6OMSL76DSVBNZ/
