Re: Impact of dropping QEMU emulation on 32-bit hosts ? (~Fedora 33)
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 20:10, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > What do you mean by breaking breaking because you use that term like a > > sledge hammer for anything from a 'pixel off' bug to 'too old software > > is in repos', 'too young software is in repos' , 'software is not in > > repos' to 'can't boot'. After a while, I assumed the only way I can't > > break a system is to never unbox it.. but I expect there is probably > > some way that is also a broken system. > > In this context, it is fairly clear what I meant: any current version of > Fedora (in around a year, this will mean any version still supported with > security updates at that point) will not run on those systems at all. It > will not even boot. > Actually it wasn't clear to me, so thank you for the clarification. Does it mean by this definition that Fedora is currently broken for ppc32, ia64, alpha and sparc because it no longer provides builds for them? Are what you wanting is that Fedora is more like Debian where we are building things for all platforms ever? -- Stephen J Smoogen. ___ 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
Re: Impact of dropping QEMU emulation on 32-bit hosts ? (~Fedora 33)
Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > What do you mean by breaking breaking because you use that term like a > sledge hammer for anything from a 'pixel off' bug to 'too old software > is in repos', 'too young software is in repos' , 'software is not in > repos' to 'can't boot'. After a while, I assumed the only way I can't > break a system is to never unbox it.. but I expect there is probably > some way that is also a broken system. In this context, it is fairly clear what I meant: any current version of Fedora (in around a year, this will mean any version still supported with security updates at that point) will not run on those systems at all. It will not even boot. Kevin Kofler ___ 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
Re: Impact of dropping QEMU emulation on 32-bit hosts ? (~Fedora 33)
On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 at 05:50, Kevin Kofler wrote: > > Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > OK at the moment it looks like we seem to average 311,000 ip addresses > > per day doing a daily checkin for Fedora. Out of those ~13,400 are > > x86_32. The majority of the x86_32 are pre-F28 with only about 3400 > > (about 14% of total x86_32 and ~1% of all Fedora users) of them being > > F28,F29,F30, or rawhide. The opposite is true for the other > > architectures with the majority running F30, then F29, then F28 and > > then a thin long tail for everything before that.] > > > > Now these statistics are not absolute numbers and could hide all kinds > > of things.. I would say though that the majority of x86_32 is on > > versions we no longer support and so we do not need to worry about > > breaking large numbers of systems. > > You are still breaking thousands of systems. (3400 is more than three > thousands.) What do you mean by breaking breaking because you use that term like a sledge hammer for anything from a 'pixel off' bug to 'too old software is in repos', 'too young software is in repos' , 'software is not in repos' to 'can't boot'. After a while, I assumed the only way I can't break a system is to never unbox it.. but I expect there is probably some way that is also a broken system. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DGNZnfKYnU -- Stephen J Smoogen. ___ 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
Re: Impact of dropping QEMU emulation on 32-bit hosts ? (~Fedora 33)
Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > OK at the moment it looks like we seem to average 311,000 ip addresses > per day doing a daily checkin for Fedora. Out of those ~13,400 are > x86_32. The majority of the x86_32 are pre-F28 with only about 3400 > (about 14% of total x86_32 and ~1% of all Fedora users) of them being > F28,F29,F30, or rawhide. The opposite is true for the other > architectures with the majority running F30, then F29, then F28 and > then a thin long tail for everything before that.] > > Now these statistics are not absolute numbers and could hide all kinds > of things.. I would say though that the majority of x86_32 is on > versions we no longer support and so we do not need to worry about > breaking large numbers of systems. You are still breaking thousands of systems. (3400 is more than three thousands.) Kevin Kofler ___ 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
Re: Impact of dropping QEMU emulation on 32-bit hosts ? (~Fedora 33)
On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 at 12:43, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 04:49:08PM -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote: > > Perhaps the same reason that many people still run i686 based hardware, and > > will be unable to use Fedora after the release of F31: Why fix what isn't > > broken? > > But the question is: Are they running qemu on this hardware? The last > i686 machine I had that could run qemu guests - very slowly by modern > standards - was manufactured in 2006, and I just last month got rid of it. > > (As an aside Fedora/i686 has been effectively dead for quite a long > time, so I'm pretty sure no one is running a supported Fedora on i686. > They may be running a long out of support Fedora though. I had to put > Debian on my i686 machine towards the end.) OK at the moment it looks like we seem to average 311,000 ip addresses per day doing a daily checkin for Fedora. Out of those ~13,400 are x86_32. The majority of the x86_32 are pre-F28 with only about 3400 (about 14% of total x86_32 and ~1% of all Fedora users) of them being F28,F29,F30, or rawhide. The opposite is true for the other architectures with the majority running F30, then F29, then F28 and then a thin long tail for everything before that.] Now these statistics are not absolute numbers and could hide all kinds of things.. I would say though that the majority of x86_32 is on versions we no longer support and so we do not need to worry about breaking large numbers of systems. -- Stephen J Smoogen. ___ 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
Re: Impact of dropping QEMU emulation on 32-bit hosts ? (~Fedora 33)
On Wednesday, October 2, 2019 9:42:57 AM MST Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 04:49:08PM -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote: > > > Perhaps the same reason that many people still run i686 based hardware, > > and will be unable to use Fedora after the release of F31: Why fix what > > isn't broken? > > > But the question is: Are they running qemu on this hardware? The last > i686 machine I had that could run qemu guests - very slowly by modern > standards - was manufactured in 2006, and I just last month got rid of it. > > (As an aside Fedora/i686 has been effectively dead for quite a long > time, so I'm pretty sure no one is running a supported Fedora on i686. > They may be running a long out of support Fedora though. I had to put > Debian on my i686 machine towards the end.) Fedora on i686 is not dead, and will not be until the release of F31, and the end of F30. There are users running Fedora on i686, such as myself. The arbitrary decision to simply stop supporting i686 has not yet killed off our i686 users. -- John M. Harris, Jr. Splentity ___ 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
Re: Impact of dropping QEMU emulation on 32-bit hosts ? (~Fedora 33)
On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 04:49:08PM -0700, John M. Harris Jr wrote: > Perhaps the same reason that many people still run i686 based hardware, and > will be unable to use Fedora after the release of F31: Why fix what isn't > broken? But the question is: Are they running qemu on this hardware? The last i686 machine I had that could run qemu guests - very slowly by modern standards - was manufactured in 2006, and I just last month got rid of it. (As an aside Fedora/i686 has been effectively dead for quite a long time, so I'm pretty sure no one is running a supported Fedora on i686. They may be running a long out of support Fedora though. I had to put Debian on my i686 machine towards the end.) Rich. -- Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com Fedora Windows cross-compiler. Compile Windows programs, test, and build Windows installers. Over 100 libraries supported. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MinGW ___ 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
Re: Impact of dropping QEMU emulation on 32-bit hosts ? (~Fedora 33)
On Friday, September 27, 2019 8:01:42 AM MST Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 10:53:32AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 8:30 AM Daniel P. Berrangé > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 01:26:09PM +0200, Jun Aruga wrote: > > > > > > > > Does anyone know of, or have, any critical/important use cases that > > > > > would > > > > > > > > be disrupted by QEMU dropping 32-bit *host* support ? If so, let me > > > > know > > > > here & I can forward feedback on. Or feel free to go direct to QEMU > > > > thread > > > > upstream. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not a real user of ARM 32-bit. I just checked information for > > > > ARM > > > > 32-bit (armv7) use cases. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ## Raspberry Pi > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raspberry_Pi > > > > > The earlier V1.1 model of the Raspberry Pi 2 used a Broadcom BCM2836 > > > > > SoC with a 900 MHz 32-bit, quad-core ARM Cortex-A7 processor, with > > > > > 256 KB shared L2 cache. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/raspberry-pi-2-on-sale/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems that the version 1.1 is the last model for 32-bit, and the > > > > announcement was 5 August 2015. > > > > I assume a considerable number of people using ARM 32-bit Raspberry > > > > Pi. > > > > > > > > > > > > Right, but I'm rather sceptical that people are running QEMU on the > > > 32-bit RPi boards. I might be less surprised about the Linux userspace > > > emulation being used, vs full VM, since the former is lower overhead. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry to burst your bubble, but since the Raspberry Pi performs quite > > badly as a 64-bit device for the moment, I've used it with Fedora > > armv7hl instead of aarch64. I personally use the user emulation > > mostly, but I know of a couple of cases where system emulation is used > > (mainly for buildsys stuff). > > > Interesting, is there a particular reason why you run the emulation on > a Pi, as opposed to using more powerful x86 hardware for it ? I'm not > saying you're wrong todo this, just trying to understand the motivation > people have. > > Regards, > Daniel > -- > > |: https://berrange.com -o-https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange > |: :| https://libvirt.org -o- > |: https://fstop138.berrange.com :| https://entangle-photo.org-o- > |: https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| > ___ > 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 Perhaps the same reason that many people still run i686 based hardware, and will be unable to use Fedora after the release of F31: Why fix what isn't broken? - - John M. Harris, Jr. Splentity ___ 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
Re: Impact of dropping QEMU emulation on 32-bit hosts ? (~Fedora 33)
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 10:53:32AM -0400, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 8:30 AM Daniel P. Berrangé > wrote: > > > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 01:26:09PM +0200, Jun Aruga wrote: > > > > Does anyone know of, or have, any critical/important use cases that > > > > would > > > be disrupted by QEMU dropping 32-bit *host* support ? If so, let me know > > > here & I can forward feedback on. Or feel free to go direct to QEMU thread > > > upstream. > > > > > > I am not a real user of ARM 32-bit. I just checked information for ARM > > > 32-bit (armv7) use cases. > > > > > > ## Raspberry Pi > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raspberry_Pi > > > > The earlier V1.1 model of the Raspberry Pi 2 used a Broadcom BCM2836 > > > > SoC with a 900 MHz 32-bit, quad-core ARM Cortex-A7 processor, with 256 > > > > KB shared L2 cache. > > > > > > > > https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/raspberry-pi-2-on-sale/ > > > > > > It seems that the version 1.1 is the last model for 32-bit, and the > > > announcement was 5 August 2015. > > > I assume a considerable number of people using ARM 32-bit Raspberry Pi. > > > > Right, but I'm rather sceptical that people are running QEMU on the > > 32-bit RPi boards. I might be less surprised about the Linux userspace > > emulation being used, vs full VM, since the former is lower overhead. > > > > > > Sorry to burst your bubble, but since the Raspberry Pi performs quite > badly as a 64-bit device for the moment, I've used it with Fedora > armv7hl instead of aarch64. I personally use the user emulation > mostly, but I know of a couple of cases where system emulation is used > (mainly for buildsys stuff). Interesting, is there a particular reason why you run the emulation on a Pi, as opposed to using more powerful x86 hardware for it ? I'm not saying you're wrong todo this, just trying to understand the motivation people have. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o-https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o-https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org-o-https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| ___ 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
Re: Impact of dropping QEMU emulation on 32-bit hosts ? (~Fedora 33)
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 8:30 AM Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 01:26:09PM +0200, Jun Aruga wrote: > > > Does anyone know of, or have, any critical/important use cases that would > > be disrupted by QEMU dropping 32-bit *host* support ? If so, let me know > > here & I can forward feedback on. Or feel free to go direct to QEMU thread > > upstream. > > > > I am not a real user of ARM 32-bit. I just checked information for ARM > > 32-bit (armv7) use cases. > > > > ## Raspberry Pi > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raspberry_Pi > > > The earlier V1.1 model of the Raspberry Pi 2 used a Broadcom BCM2836 SoC > > > with a 900 MHz 32-bit, quad-core ARM Cortex-A7 processor, with 256 KB > > > shared L2 cache. > > > > > > https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/raspberry-pi-2-on-sale/ > > > > It seems that the version 1.1 is the last model for 32-bit, and the > > announcement was 5 August 2015. > > I assume a considerable number of people using ARM 32-bit Raspberry Pi. > > Right, but I'm rather sceptical that people are running QEMU on the > 32-bit RPi boards. I might be less surprised about the Linux userspace > emulation being used, vs full VM, since the former is lower overhead. > > Sorry to burst your bubble, but since the Raspberry Pi performs quite badly as a 64-bit device for the moment, I've used it with Fedora armv7hl instead of aarch64. I personally use the user emulation mostly, but I know of a couple of cases where system emulation is used (mainly for buildsys stuff). > > ## Running Linux on smart phone device. > > > > Some articles about it. > > > > * > > https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2017/03/16/installing-linux-on-an-android-phone/ > > * https://www.quora.com/How-can-I-install-Fedora-on-my-smartphone > > Perhaps I'm wrong, but I got the impression most mid range & above Android > phones are now 64-bit ARM. > They are. > > > https://android.stackexchange.com/a/202022 > > > > ARMv7 (32-bit) was 98.1% in entire share of android hardware on March 2017. > > I think things changed alot in smartphones over the last two years, > though admittedly my experiance is biased towards my part of the world. > > ARMv7 still dominates by a wide margin outside of North America, Western Europe, Japan, and Australia. > > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-09/msg06216.html > > > Eventually this public don't need edge QEMU, it might keep using QEMU > > v5.0.stable until all NAS/embedded devices are 64-bit... > > > > For example, how about releasing compat-qemu50 RPM if upstream will > > drop armv7 on qemu 6.x? > > It's like compat-openssl10 RPM for openssl (version 1.1) RPM. > > > > Maybe if some RPM packages need armv7 support, they can use > > compat-qemu50 conditionally in the spec file. > > I'd be pretty strongly against providing any outdated QEMU builds in > Fedora given the high frequency of security updates that need to be > dealt with. I agree here. It's probably just better to convince upstream to not drop 32-bit host support. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! ___ 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
Re: Impact of dropping QEMU emulation on 32-bit hosts ? (~Fedora 33)
On Fri, Sep 27, 2019 at 01:26:09PM +0200, Jun Aruga wrote: > > Does anyone know of, or have, any critical/important use cases that would > be disrupted by QEMU dropping 32-bit *host* support ? If so, let me know > here & I can forward feedback on. Or feel free to go direct to QEMU thread > upstream. > > I am not a real user of ARM 32-bit. I just checked information for ARM > 32-bit (armv7) use cases. > > ## Raspberry Pi > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raspberry_Pi > > The earlier V1.1 model of the Raspberry Pi 2 used a Broadcom BCM2836 SoC > > with a 900 MHz 32-bit, quad-core ARM Cortex-A7 processor, with 256 KB > > shared L2 cache. > > > > https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/raspberry-pi-2-on-sale/ > > It seems that the version 1.1 is the last model for 32-bit, and the > announcement was 5 August 2015. > I assume a considerable number of people using ARM 32-bit Raspberry Pi. Right, but I'm rather sceptical that people are running QEMU on the 32-bit RPi boards. I might be less surprised about the Linux userspace emulation being used, vs full VM, since the former is lower overhead. > ## Running Linux on smart phone device. > > Some articles about it. > > * > https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2017/03/16/installing-linux-on-an-android-phone/ > * https://www.quora.com/How-can-I-install-Fedora-on-my-smartphone Perhaps I'm wrong, but I got the impression most mid range & above Android phones are now 64-bit ARM. > > https://android.stackexchange.com/a/202022 > > ARMv7 (32-bit) was 98.1% in entire share of android hardware on March 2017. I think things changed alot in smartphones over the last two years, though admittedly my experiance is biased towards my part of the world. > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-09/msg06216.html > > Eventually this public don't need edge QEMU, it might keep using QEMU > v5.0.stable until all NAS/embedded devices are 64-bit... > > For example, how about releasing compat-qemu50 RPM if upstream will > drop armv7 on qemu 6.x? > It's like compat-openssl10 RPM for openssl (version 1.1) RPM. > > Maybe if some RPM packages need armv7 support, they can use > compat-qemu50 conditionally in the spec file. I'd be pretty strongly against providing any outdated QEMU builds in Fedora given the high frequency of security updates that need to be dealt with. Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o-https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o-https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org-o-https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| ___ 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
Re: Impact of dropping QEMU emulation on 32-bit hosts ? (~Fedora 33)
> For example, how about releasing compat-qemu50 RPM if upstream will > drop armv7 on qemu 6.x? > It's like compat-openssl10 RPM for openssl (version 1.1) RPM. > > Maybe if some RPM packages need armv7 support, they can use > compat-qemu50 conditionally in the spec file. Sorry. Typo. s/compat-qemu50/compat-qemu5/ Jun ___ 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
Re: Impact of dropping QEMU emulation on 32-bit hosts ? (~Fedora 33)
> Does anyone know of, or have, any critical/important use cases that would be disrupted by QEMU dropping 32-bit *host* support ? If so, let me know here & I can forward feedback on. Or feel free to go direct to QEMU thread upstream. I am not a real user of ARM 32-bit. I just checked information for ARM 32-bit (armv7) use cases. ## Raspberry Pi > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raspberry_Pi > The earlier V1.1 model of the Raspberry Pi 2 used a Broadcom BCM2836 SoC with > a 900 MHz 32-bit, quad-core ARM Cortex-A7 processor, with 256 KB shared L2 > cache. > > https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/raspberry-pi-2-on-sale/ It seems that the version 1.1 is the last model for 32-bit, and the announcement was 5 August 2015. I assume a considerable number of people using ARM 32-bit Raspberry Pi. ## Running Linux on smart phone device. Some articles about it. * https://developers.redhat.com/blog/2017/03/16/installing-linux-on-an-android-phone/ * https://www.quora.com/How-can-I-install-Fedora-on-my-smartphone > https://android.stackexchange.com/a/202022 ARMv7 (32-bit) was 98.1% in entire share of android hardware on March 2017. > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-09/msg06216.html > Eventually this public don't need edge QEMU, it might keep using QEMU v5.0.stable until all NAS/embedded devices are 64-bit... For example, how about releasing compat-qemu50 RPM if upstream will drop armv7 on qemu 6.x? It's like compat-openssl10 RPM for openssl (version 1.1) RPM. Maybe if some RPM packages need armv7 support, they can use compat-qemu50 conditionally in the spec file. Jun ___ 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
Impact of dropping QEMU emulation on 32-bit hosts ? (~Fedora 33)
The upstream QEMU community is raising the possibility of deprecating, and subsequently deleting, support for running emulation guests on 32-bit *hosts*. Running 32-bit guests would *not* be affected. See this thread: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-09/msg06168.html IOW, if you have a armv7/i686/ppc *host* machine, you would no longer be able to use QEMU for either full machine system emulation (TCG), nor linux userspace emulators (TCG). Potentially KVM for 32-bit *host* would be dropped too, but QEMU might deal with that separately, to align with kernel support for KVM on 32-bit. In simple terms, we're talking this proposed matrix for running virtual machines or linux userspace with emulated CPU architectures: | Host 32-bit | Host 64-bit -+-+ Guest 32-bit | dropped | supported Guest 64-bit | dropped | supported Given that i686 is no longer composed in Fedora, that leaves armv7 as the Fedora host arch which would be affected. If upstream goes ahead, we have 2 releases with deprecation[1], so the earliest it would be deleted is the QEMU release in Aug 2020, which would be Fedora 33 timeframe IIUC. At that time any RPM with a dependancy on QEMU on 32-bit would need some %ifarch, or ExclusiveArch magic. I'm assuming there's nothing in Fedora infra that uses 32-bit hosts, as IIUC, our armv7 koji builders are all on aarch64 hosts. Does anyone know of, or have, any critical/important use cases that would be disrupted by QEMU dropping 32-bit *host* support ? If so, let me know here & I can forward feedback on. Or feel free to go direct to QEMU thread upstream. Regards, Daniel [1] https://qemu.weilnetz.de/doc/qemu-doc.html#Deprecated-features -- |: https://berrange.com -o-https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o-https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org-o-https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| ___ 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
