On Tue, Mar 8, 2022 at 9:57 PM Miro Hrončok <mhron...@redhat.com> wrote:
(snip) > I think we are all misinterpreting the intention of this change proposal. > > We are suggesting better ways to get rid of i686. And the arguments are valid. > However, I now think that this change proposal was not proposed to get rid of > i686, not even to get rid of most of the i686 packages. Indeed, there are more > sophisticated ways to do that -- OTOH volunteers don't seem to exactly pile > up. > > I think this change proposal has a different goal in mind. A simpler goal. > Goal > that requires no volunteers: > > Give maintainers a blanket approval to exclude i686 if it bothers them in any > way and their package is a leaf i686 package. That is it. Will this speed up > eventual i686 retirement? Possibly, but not much. But that is not the goal. > The > goal is to clearly communicate: It is OK to drop this, you don't need to ask > for permissions or file bugzillas, just make sure you don't break anything > (and > here's how you check if you are not breaking anything). > > Is that correct, Fabio? > > If so, I think it is actually a good thing to do. It won't solve the big > elephant in the room, but it has the potential to ease packaging for some. Yes. That's the whole point. Package maintainers who would benefit from dropping i686 from their packages probably already know that i686 is painful for them. And this Proposal is supposed to make their life easier by saying "fine, drop it, assuming nothing depends on it". Stripping down the entire corpus of Fedora packages to the bare minimum of packages that are needed for multilib was never the goal here. We might reach that state over time, but it's not the goal here. I thought about how we could implement some automatic filtering (possibly at the koji level, so we wouldn't need to touch tens of thousands of spec files), but I decided it was not worth it, at least not yet. Additionally, if there ever was an error in that automation, it might not even be possible to revert some catastrophic changes without doing an architecture bootstrap for i686, and I *really really* don't want that to become necessary. I also don't have the time nor the koji / RPM knowledge required to implement automation like this. And given that the response to my proposal of "make package maintainer's jobs easier by giving them more power to do only do the things they want to do" has largely been "you're stupid and don't know what you're talking about", I'm not optimistic that anybody would step up to volunteer. :( Fabio _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
