Re: i686 as secondary arch?

2016-07-12 Thread Peter Robinson
> On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Richard W.M. Jones > 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

Re: i686 as secondary arch?

2016-07-05 Thread Josh Boyer
On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 9:45 AM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 5 July 2016 at 06:46, 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

Re: i686 as secondary arch?

2016-07-05 Thread Florian Weimer
On 07/05/2016 03:36 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 12:56:37PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: On 07/05/2016 10:57 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: 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,

Re: i686 as secondary arch?

2016-07-05 Thread Stephen John Smoogen
On 5 July 2016 at 06:46, 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 >>> wrote: Timely article

Re: i686 as secondary arch?

2016-07-05 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 12:56:37PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 07/05/2016 10:57 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > >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. > > Well, that's

Re: i686 as secondary arch?

2016-07-05 Thread Daniel P. Berrange
On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 12:10:03PM +0100, Peter Robinson wrote: > On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > > On 07/05/2016 10:57 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > > >> If you need to run an i686 virtual machine based on Rawhide, my > >> experience is that it's

Re: i686 as secondary arch?

2016-07-05 Thread Peter Robinson
On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 11:56 AM, Florian Weimer wrote: > On 07/05/2016 10:57 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > >> 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. > > > Well,

Re: i686 as secondary arch?

2016-07-05 Thread Adrian Reber
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 > > > wrote: > > > > Timely article in the

Re: i686 as secondary arch?

2016-07-05 Thread Florian Weimer
On 07/05/2016 10:57 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: 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. Well, that's independent for the state as primary vs secondary architecture. If we remove i686

Re: i686 as secondary arch?

2016-07-05 Thread Florian Weimer
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 wrote: Timely article in the Register today:

Re: i686 as secondary arch?

2016-07-05 Thread Nico Kadel-Garcia
ds? >> > >> > 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

Re: i686 as secondary arch?

2016-07-05 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
ique 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 i

Re: i686 as secondary arch?

2016-07-05 Thread Adrian Reber
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 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

Re: i686 as secondary arch?

2016-07-05 Thread Peter Robinson
On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Richard W.M. Jones 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

i686 as secondary arch?

2016-07-05 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
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: