On 06/11/17 21:16, Eli Schwartz wrote: > On 11/06/2017 05:36 AM, Alad Wenter via arch-dev-public wrote: >>> Bartłomiej Piotrowski <bpiotrow...@archlinux.org> hat am 6. >>> November 2017 um 11:21 geschrieben: >>> >>> Slightly changing the topic... We have plenty of space on our >>> PIA-sponsored mirrors. Given that said fork pretty strictly follows >>> our PKGBUILDs (much alike to ARM team), I'd like to host arch32 >>> mirrors there as well. What do you think? >>> >> I don't mind, but in the end it's up to those who pay for the >> mirrors. >> >> It does bring up the topic again on how the Arch community will >> support arch32. Does hosting arch32 mirrors give the impression that >> we support the fork through our channels, or is that unrelated? How >> will we otherwise react on support requests for or from arch32? IMO, >> the announcement is vague on that. >> >> (Personally I would support the idea of having both projects under a >> common umbrella. But by now arch32 has their own support >> infrastructure, including forums). > > Well, I doubt they wanted to be caught by surprise and have nothing > ready if we decided not to allow support requests for arch32... > > But if we are willing to allow arch32 to be hosted under our umbrella, > the presence of separate infrastructure should not IMHO cause us to go > back on that and therefore cause additional fragmentation that we were > initially okay with avoiding. >
In all my time here, I can remember one i686 bug that did not also affect x86_64. That suggests a common infrastructure is warranted. A
