On Tuesday 24 February 2004 12:50, Mike A. Harris wrote:
On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Gene C. wrote:
All RPM packages are built on all 7 architectures, both in Fedora
Core 1, and Fedora Core 2, so from that angle, it doesn't make
any more work than we already have, to produce AMD64 packages.
There is some overhead involved with producing updates, but
_only_ if they are AMD64 specific updates. If they were updates
for x86 anyway, releasing for both x86 and AMD64 shouldn't really
pose additional effort.
I agree. However, when I sent a private message to Mark McLoughlin yesterday
(private because the mailing lists were hosed), he sent the following to Bill
Sorry, but I've no idea.
Bill, are testing updates only released for i386 or ...?
And Bill's response was:
Currently only releases for x86 in general, because of the way
the process works.
The only problem I see from the "work" angle, is that when Fedora
Core 1 goes end of life, it should go end of life on all
architectures simultaneously in my opinion, however if AMD64
release trails it, then either the AMD64 release isn't supported
for the same length of time from it's initial release, or else
additional effort would have to be spent supporting the AMD64
release for n months from release date. However if we supported
AMD64 for the same length of time as we planned to support x86,
then we might as well support both of them until the same EOL
date, as everything builds on both arches anyway.
EOL should be the current EOL for FC1. The fact that it might be shorter for
amd64 is not something I consider important.
Again, this is just some of my thoughts, bouncing in the air.
>2. At the current time, FC1 is more stable (especially with all
>of the updates applied) than the current state of FC2 (as could
>be expected since FC2 is still in development and testing). In
>addition, it is not at all difficult to rebuild the ix86
>packages for the x86_64 (I have done this for the current set of
>updates). FC1 test1 + updates is a fairly stable platform and
>should be pretty close to what would be available if FC1 x86_64
>final was released.
Agreed. And even after FC2 is finally released, it might be a
while before a 2.6.x based distribution could be considered as
stable as a final 2.4.x based distribution. In that case, I
would prefer myself to be running FC1 on an AMD64 box.
I have found that FC1 x86_64 test1 plus errata (should be close to what
would/will be final) to be quite stable.
>So, work on getting FC2 with varying stability (there will be
>problems) or put time in to roll out a FC1 x86_64 final? At the
>present time, I lean toward option 1. I do have a working FC1
>test1 plus all updates so the release of the FC2 x86_64 final
>will be of little value to me except to do testing for the
I think you got your FC1's and FC2's mixed up in that last
sentence. Could you clarify?
Oops. What I meant to say was that x86_64 FC1-test1 plus updates should be
more or less identical to x86_64 FC1 final plus updates -- that is pretty
much what I have now and thus the FC1 final will not improve things too much
for me. However, not everyone has these updates available or necessarily the
skills, etc. to create the updates themselves ... for them, we need a final.
IMHO, we should release FC1 for AMD64 because enough people have
spent effort on it that it would be wasted if it wasn't released.
It just wont likely have the same lifespan as the x86 release
did, because it has been released much later than the x86
From my perspective, the person doing most of the work is Justin and I
he sees doing both as a bit too much to be able to handle. I am not
him as he has done a lot of work for us all.
What is currently blocking FC1/AMD64 from being released anyway?
?? OK, over to you
other folks at Red Hat.