On Wed, Mar 9, 2022 at 4:06 PM Chris Adams <li...@cmadams.net> wrote: > > Once upon a time, Fabio Valentini <decatho...@gmail.com> said: > > Package maintainers who would benefit from dropping i686 from their > > packages probably already know that i686 is painful for them. > > So I guess this is the part I don't really understand (and I guess why I > don't see this proposal as a "win") - how is i686 painful to package > maintainers for non-delivered packages? Maybe I'm just missing > something, but what causes issues?
The problem is that those packages are painful to *build*. We don't ship most of them at all, but they're still *built*. And given limitations of 32-bit architectures (especially per-process and total memory) and ever-more-complex software, this is starting to hit more and more packages. For example, I already had to limit functionality or quality of debuginfo of some of my packages because otherwise they wouldn't compile in 32-bit environments *at all*. This is what's *painful* and makes no sense: Having to deal with architecture limitations, but for architectures where we don't even ship the resulting packages. Fabio _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
