On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 12:46:00PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 07/05/2016 11:09 AM, 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
>
> These statistics do not cover package downloads of i686 packages which are
> part of the x86_64 repositories, do they?
No, that is not included. This is only what clients are sending as arch
in the mirrorlist/metalink request. Usually: arch=$basearch
Adrian
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
