> 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
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
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,
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
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:
15 matches
Mail list logo