On Sat, 2016-04-23 at 09:27 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> >>
> >> Just to this point - if we wanted to support the Baytrail tablets
> >> properly we should probably get 64-on-32 working. Allowing 32-bit
> UEFI
> >> installs probably isn't something we want to do officially.
> >
> >
> > Has t
On Apr 23, 2016 09:18, "Florian Weimer" wrote:
>
> On 08/13/2015 03:17 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 2015-08-04 at 10:47 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 10:40:28AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
"Ambivalent" is probably understated here. It's hard
On 08/13/2015 03:17 PM, Adam Williamson wrote:
On Tue, 2015-08-04 at 10:47 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 10:40:28AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
"Ambivalent" is probably understated here. It's hard to imagine
people securing i686 hardware these days to run a Workstation
Am 15.08.2015 um 14:50 schrieb Matthew Miller:
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 06:47:44AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
Definitely. 10/15 years+ ago, [...]
[...]
Also, in those days, devs cared about efficiency. Nowadays, they
don't care as much,
People have been making this exact complaint since t
On Sat, Aug 15, 2015 at 06:47:44AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Definitely. 10/15 years+ ago, [...]
[...]
> Also, in those days, devs cared about efficiency. Nowadays, they
> don't care as much,
People have been making this exact complaint since the 1970s. Probably
before.
--
Matthew Miller
On 08/14/2015 12:00 PM, Richard Z wrote:
I regularly use i686 and have not done a fresh install since years so
would not detect this. Maybe fresh installs aren't such a deal for i686
users
Well, from my experience, fresh installs on i686 are a major problem w/
Fedora, because Fedora's SW demand
On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 09:47:27AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> In February[2] we sent out an email highlighting that the kernel team
> was not going to treat i686 bugs as a priority. Since that time, we
> have held true to our word and have not focused on fixing i686 bugs at
> all. It seems that
On Tue, 2015-08-04 at 10:47 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 10:40:28AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> > "Ambivalent" is probably understated here. It's hard to imagine
> > people securing i686 hardware these days to run a Workstation
> > experience, after all.
>
> The ques
On 6 August 2015 at 10:04, Pete Travis wrote:
>
\
>>
>
> Perhaps the best approach, from a community perspective, would be to promote
> a spin to Edition status and recommend *that* for i686 or low resource
> desktop use cases.
>
> --Pete
>
That would require people volunteering to dedicate time
On Aug 4, 2015 9:40 AM, "Paul W. Frields" wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 09:47:27AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> [...snip...]
> > Perhaps it is time that we evaluate where i686 stands in Fedora more
> > closely. For a starting suggestion, I would recommend that we do not
> > treat it as a relea
On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 10:40:28 -0400,
"Paul W. Frields" wrote:
"Ambivalent" is probably understated here. It's hard to imagine
people securing i686 hardware these days to run a Workstation
experience, after all.
I still use i686 for my primary server, primary desktop and primary laptop.
On Tue, 2015-08-04 at 11:12 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Here's my perspective as an i686 Fedora user...
>
> I have a box (2009-ish) that's in use as a file/backup server. As
> such, I don't
> spend a lot of time futzing with it - it doesn't run rawhide, it
> rarely runs
> the prereleases unt
On 08/04/2015 05:12 PM, Bill Nottingham wrote:
Paul W. Frields (sticks...@gmail.com) said:
Here's my perspective as an i686 Fedora user...
I have a box (2009-ish) that's in use as a file/backup server.
I have 3 i686 boxen.
2 are 2009-ish atom-netbook, one is a 2000-ish PIII-desktop.
As s
On 08/04/2015 08:38 AM, Peter Robinson wrote:
A lot of the users of i686 that I know use it from live images or
installing live images which, and I've not followed the issue too
closely so might be a little off here, wouldn't have hit the bug that
was being seen by the installer side of things. A
>> > Perhaps it is time that we evaluate where i686 stands in Fedora more
>> > closely. For a starting suggestion, I would recommend that we do not
>> > treat it as a release blocking architecture. This is not the same as
>> > demotion to secondary architecture status. That has broader
>> > impl
Paul W. Frields (sticks...@gmail.com) said:
> On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 09:47:27AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
> [...snip...]
> > Perhaps it is time that we evaluate where i686 stands in Fedora more
> > closely. For a starting suggestion, I would recommend that we do not
> > treat it as a release bloc
On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 09:47:27AM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
[...snip...]
> Perhaps it is time that we evaluate where i686 stands in Fedora more
> closely. For a starting suggestion, I would recommend that we do not
> treat it as a release blocking architecture. This is not the same as
> demotion
On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 10:40:28AM -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> "Ambivalent" is probably understated here. It's hard to imagine
> people securing i686 hardware these days to run a Workstation
> experience, after all.
The question, I think, is how much we want to prioritize the
"Workstation exp
18 matches
Mail list logo
