On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 6:02 AM, Richard W.M. Jones <rjo...@redhat.com> wrote: > On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 11:09:46AM +0200, Adrian Reber wrote: >> On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 10:04:03AM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: >> > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Richard W.M. Jones <rjo...@redhat.com> >> > wrote: >> > > Timely article in the Register today: >> > > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/07/05/linux_letting_go_32bit_builds_on_the_way_out/ >> > > >> > > I've been thinking about this as i686 is so often broken that I've now >> > > stopped bothering to test it in the libguestfs tests that I do on >> > > Rawhide: >> > > >> > > http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/rpms/libguestfs.git/commit/?id=aa63cef2d7679e1906551ef4e46c2e9a8861b56c >> > > >> > > If you need to run an i686 virtual machine based on Rawhide, my >> > > experience is that it's more likely than not that it won't boot, and >> > > no one cares. >> > > >> > > Do we have stats for the relative proportion of i686 vs x86-64 downloads? >> > >> > No really because of mirrors etc, but mirror manager stats from Feb >> > (FPL DevConf talk) list i686 as around 20% unique IP hits, that >> > doesn't take into account proxies/NAT using same IP etc. >> >> What clients are requesting from MirrorManager can also be seen here: >> >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mirrormanager/statistics/2016-07-05/archs > > More than I thought it would be. I guess it wouldn't make sense to > move i686 to a secondary arch while other secondary arches that might > become primary (eg. aarch64) are still at far smaller numbers. > > Rich.
How much of that is for actual live systems, and how much of that is for similarly obsolete build environments? I know that I wind up testing my builds on both x86_64 and i386 mock environments for testing, but I gave up on actually using the i386 installations years ago. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
