On Jul 12, 2013, at 5:32, Matthew Garrett <mjg59(a)srcf.ucam.org> wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:58:08PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:50:24PM -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>> Or does it mean x86 as PA is out of line? There are a lot more people
>>> with ARM devices than x86. Sorry everybody, we're going to have to
>>> x86. ;-)
>> False marketing. Majority of ARM devices out there don't run Fedora and
>> never will.
> Sooner or later, though, we probably _should_ deemphasize 32-bit x86.
The website already links to 64-bit in preference to 32-bit. There's
arguably reasons to prefer 32-bit in certain memory-constrained
environments, but there's certainly arguments in favour of (say)
dropping most of the 32-bit x86 package set and turning it into a
specialised subset of the overall distribution.
Heck, if you're doing that, go x32 for those small set of libraries and force folks to
build against those :) We'll have a similar API on AArch64 in due course and I
wouldn't want to see a Primary Architecture missing feature parity with secondaries...