On 2018-06-04 9:55 am, Jeff Backus wrote:
On Mon, Jun 4, 2018 at 12:11 PM, Florian Weimer
On 06/04/2018 05:55 PM, Jeff Backus wrote:
Would you please provide more detail on what problem or problems we are trying to solve?
Is this purely for efficiency reasons? Mainly developer efficiency. There will be fewer
test suite problems due to excess precision (a bunch of packages carry patches which
introduce -ffloat-store on i686 to work around them). Packagers will not have to figure
out a way how to build for compatibility with non-SSE2 systems (which some upstreams do
not support anymore).
Furthermore, the divergence from downstream is troubling to Red Hatters for various
reasons. (Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 already underwent a similar change.)
Thanks for the insight. Yes, I can see the advantages. However, have
things really gotten so bad that it justifies ejecting part of the
community? Yes, a minor part of the community, but a part of the
community none the less. As you mentioned, the excess precision issue
has a known work around. And for packages where upstream does not
support non-SSE2, packagers can raise a flag with the x86 SIG. If there
isn't enough interest or bandwidth to add support for non-SSE2 systems,
then I think it is perfectly reasonable to add a note in the package
description and move on. I believe packages such as Dark Table already
Until (unless?) we have data indicating that this is a major drain on
community resources, I'd push back on a change that actively excludes
part of the community. Now, if we do have data indicating that
supporting non-SSE2 systems with the i686 architecture is a
not-insignificant burden on the community, then I ask that this proposal
be updated to include a solution that allows us to not push out part of
the community, e.g. Ajax's i586 suggestion.
Not trying to be quarrelsome. I understand the desire to focus efforts,
however, I hope we can also appreciate the concerns of those of us with
currently supported hardware that would be affected by this proposal.
X86 mailing list -- x86(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to x86-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
I agree with Jeff. I don't see the current issues as anywhere near
strong enough to justify killing off the non-SSE2 chips. I have several
Pentium 3 era systems myself, and it would sadden me indeed if they were
no longer capable of running my distro of choice. I've compiled an
entire xfce4 based distro for i586 once, and let me tell you, there were
some trouble packages, but for the vast majority, it wasn't too bad. If
there are stability problems on i686 in the kernel, that's a bug that
once figured out should be easy to fix.
Sure, we'd gain a *little* maintainability, and the systems still
capable of running Fedora i686 would get a slight performance boost, but
in the end it would **reduce the case for the existence of the i686 SIG
as a whole**, if it only runs on x86_64-era chips. After all, why keep
it around if it requires the hardware the main architecture supports
So I'm sorry, I strongly oppose this change.