On 02/24/2017 12:10 PM, Rodney Dawes wrote: > On Fri, 2017-02-24 at 18:28 +0100, Matthias Apitz wrote: >> It is, because the click pkg are EOL and the snap require 64-bit > > No. Anyone should be able to create snap based images for 32-bit > devices if they wish. However, I think as only new devices coming to > market at this point are really going to be 64-bit, the goal is to only > support 64-bit for official device images. For example, see the > discussions previously about no longer building final release ISOs of > Ubuntu for i386, or how there haven't been ones for PowerPC for a while > now. However, both of those architectures are still built in the > archive, and some derivatives still build releases for those > architectures.
In my mind, this logic makes complete sense, as it does for Ubuntu i386 example, if most devices on the market are 64-bit and it is of very little benefit to support older hardware via official channels. In fact, Ubuntu has indeed officially supported i386 concurrently with 64-bit during many years of transition. As for Ubuntu Touch phones, since 100% of existing phone devices are 32-bit, there are no 64-bit phones even being planned (at least publicly), wiping 32-bit future official support outright alienates the core power users and developers - i.e. pretty much everyone - in a frustrating way. Sure, community could decide to backport Ubuntu Touch updates to legacy phones (has anyone volunteered/committed to doing so?), or they could decide to move on and do something else completely different instead with their time. I guess personally for me, MWC is the last glimmer of hope - a miracle announcement of a modern 64-bit dev phone to replace mako, but I don't know how much I'd be willing to bet on that. -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone Post to : ubuntu-phone@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-phone More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
