Fwd: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?
by Stephen John Smoogen
Can anyone look at these and look for fixes? Thanks
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de>
Date: 28 August 2017 at 11:05
Subject: Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?
To: devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
On 08/28/2017 04:35 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1482798
>> (Bug 1482798 - Illegal instruction in SHA1_Update() when used by chronyd)
>
>
> That's definitely a bug for F27.
nss-softok is broken in similar ways on fedora-26-i686
Ralf
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
6 years, 3 months
Organizational Deadline
by Jeff Backus
Hi All,
Not sure if anyone else is aware, but it looks like FESCo voted to give us
until September 8th to get organized or i686 is being pulled from kernels
for F28. The good news is that they are letting us define what "organized"
means. The bad news is that the clocks ticking.
So, thoughts?
jeff
--
Jeff Backus
jeff.backus(a)gmail.com
http://github.com/jsbackus
6 years, 3 months
Re: Fwd: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?
by Daniel Hopson
> I'm actually questioning the utility of i686 at all if it requires SSE2, since I feel
like there's a fairly slim generation of machines > that supported only i686 and did
support SSE2.
Corrected my typo.
6 years, 3 months
Fwd: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?
by Stephen John Smoogen
Can anyone look at these and look for fixes? Thanks
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ralf Corsepius <rc040203(a)freenet.de>
Date: 28 August 2017 at 11:05
Subject: Re: No i686 kernel: Can we require SSE2 for i686?
To: devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
On 08/28/2017 04:35 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1482798
>> (Bug 1482798 - Illegal instruction in SHA1_Update() when used by chronyd)
>
>
> That's definitely a bug for F27.
nss-softok is broken in similar ways on fedora-26-i686
Ralf
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
6 years, 3 months
Re: Organizational Deadline
by Jeff Backus
On Mon, Aug 28, 2017 at 2:24 PM, Josh Boyer <jwboyer(a)fedoraproject.org> wrote:
>
> I respectfully decline.
>
> josh
We understand. Thanks for taking the time to read the previous e-mail.
jeff
--
Jeff Backus
jeff.backus(a)gmail.com
http://github.com/jsbackus
6 years, 3 months
Fwd: No i686 build of grub2?
by Stephen John Smoogen
So this looks like someone is going to need to start working on what
is broken in the x86_32 grub2.
Any volunteers?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Bruno Wolff III <bruno(a)wolff.to>
Date: 23 August 2017 at 08:27
Subject: No i686 build of grub2?
To: devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Currently grub2 isn't being built for i686 since somewhere between
2.02-8 and 2.02-10.
I looked through the change log (but not the git log yet) and didn't
see anything mentioning this, which I would have expected if it was an
intentional change.
So is this a new permanent feature going forward or a temporary oops?
(I still have one machine I use regularly, that only runs i686 and it
will probably be a while before I can afford to replace it.)
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
6 years, 3 months
Fwd: i386 Xen PV support still needed?
by Stephen John Smoogen
Are there any people on the list who are affected by this change enough to
maintain it?
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Florian Weimer <fweimer(a)redhat.com>
Date: 1 August 2017 at 08:19
Subject: i386 Xen PV support still needed?
To: Development discussions related to Fedora <devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>,
glibc(a)fedoraproject.org
We still build a special glibc variant for Xen which avoids certain
segment-relative accesses which are difficult to emulate with
paravirtualization..
Is this still needed? Can we drop it?
Thanks,
Florian
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
6 years, 4 months