On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 11:19 AM Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 25, 2025 at 10:42:22AM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 24, 2025 at 7:46 PM Eduard Lucena <x3m...@fedoraproject.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > Hello guys, > > > > > > As I did it in discussion.fp.o, I need to remind everyone that the latest > > > update of Fedora Strategy [1] that one the objectives is to grow our > > > users base, so potentially killing gaming goes directly against that > > > strategy. > > > > "potentially killing gaming" is a pretty bold and broad statement that > > I don't think you can actually back up. > > Also 'grow our userbase' is not an absolute statement that stands > alone. It is the strategy for how Fedora delivers on its vision / > mission, building on the project's foundations. > > Some ways to grow our userbase will be aligned with Fedora's mission > and some won't be aligned. We need to figure out where the balance > between multiple competing factors lies. > > > > Being that said, I think all points discussed here are really > > > interesting. I would love to be part of any sig trying to keep important > > > things like gaming and recording/streaming (OBS) live in the distro, but > > > instead of just dropping and then wait for people to react on that, the > > > step should be done backwards, having a SIG taking care of things for 2 > > > or 3 releases, and then dropping from the main build system. And also, we > > > should involve the marketing team now, to mitigate the already coming > > > press about it [2]. > > > > Having a dedicated i686 SIG was already tried back when it was > > proposed to stop building kernel packages and installer images for > > i686. > > That SIG was formed and then basically never did anything. So I don't > > think it's going to work the second time, either ... > > And this is the crux of the problem. > > This is one of the periodic unusual Fedora change proposals where not > adopting it, is defacto making a concious decision to force volunteers > maintainers to continue to work on something that many consider to be > undesirable and a technological dead end. > > I very much doubt that pushing this down the road for another 2-4 releases > will change the situation wrt steam requirements for i686. We'll just end > up rehashing the same points and be no closer to a viable solution. IMHO > we need some clear action to move us forward, rather than hoping that > Valve suddenly decide to do something different after seemingly ignoring > the problem for years. Fedora needs to control its own destiny. > > IMHO, ideally there would be a counter proposal put forward for F44 by > those who want to invest in i686 and steam, outlining a strategy for > how to support i686 without the current cross-distro & build infra maint > burden it currently imposes, even on maintainers whose packages are not > consumed by Steam. We don't neccessarily need to deliver a full solution > for F44 but, IMHO, we need to at least make some step forward towards a > solution that is more sustainable than the status-quo.
Well said, thank you. I wish discussion.fp.o posts were more like this ... 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
