On 11 Sep 2019, at 21:03, vvs vvs <vvs009(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, that's understandable. But this is beating of a dead horse.
But what matters now is that by doing some small investigation i686 users can still get
support for their bugs which are common for both platforms. This doesn't require any
formalities like SIG or commitments which they can't make and it is always available
for anyone who can afford to spend some additional time if such bug affects them bad
enough.
That's literally all the x86 SIG was asked to do - get some small investigation work
going so that between all of them, packages that had i686-unique bugs could be fixed in a
timely fashion. They couldn't get enough interest going to even keep the kernel
building for i686 as well as x86-64.
Everything else, including commitments from individuals and the mailing list, was
secondary to that goal, and was only looked at because the x86 SIG was failing to help
resolve FTBFS bugs that were blocking S390, x86-64 and other arches.
I think this could work better than previous attempts at keeping x86
SIG alive. Of course nothing prevents some volunteers to do above work on behalf of other
users or create mirrors for distribution of i686 packages. But this is not critical to
keep things running.
The problem is that you're discussing what the x86 SIG was formed to do - the only
reason to form a SIG to begin with was so that there was a bit of Fedora infrastructure
(mailing lists etc) devoted to connecting packagers with i686-only problems to people who
were willing to try and solve them.
If no-one's willing to actually do anything to fix i686 FTBFS issues, then Fedora will
drop i686 support eventually. That's all that's happening here - no-one wants to
do anything to keep i686 alive as an architecture for Fedora, so Fedora is dropping i686.