[draft] The end of i686 support

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
9 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

[draft] The end of i686 support

Bartłomiej Piotrowski-3
Following 9 months of [deprecation period][1], support for the i686
architecture effectively ends today. By the end of November, i686
packages will be removed from our mirrors and later from the packages
archive.

For users unable to upgrade their hardware to x86_64, an alternative is
a community maintained fork named [Arch Linux 32][2]. See their website
for details on migrating existing installations.

[1]: https://www.archlinux.org/news/phasing-out-i686-support/
[2]: https://archlinux32.org/
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [draft] The end of i686 support

Bartłomiej Piotrowski-3
On 2017-11-06 11:16, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:

> Following 9 months of [deprecation period][1], support for the i686
> architecture effectively ends today. By the end of November, i686
> packages will be removed from our mirrors and later from the packages
> archive.
>
> For users unable to upgrade their hardware to x86_64, an alternative is
> a community maintained fork named [Arch Linux 32][2]. See their website
> for details on migrating existing installations.
>
> [1]: https://www.archlinux.org/news/phasing-out-i686-support/
> [2]: https://archlinux32.org/
>

Slightly changing the topic... We have plenty of space on our
PIA-sponsored mirrors. Given that said fork pretty strictly follows our
PKGBUILDs (much alike to ARM team), I'd like to host arch32 mirrors
there as well. What do you think?

Bartłomiej
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [draft] The end of i686 support

arch dev mailing list
> Bartłomiej Piotrowski <[hidden email]> hat am 6. November 2017 um 11:21 geschrieben:
>
> Slightly changing the topic... We have plenty of space on our
> PIA-sponsored mirrors. Given that said fork pretty strictly follows our
> PKGBUILDs (much alike to ARM team), I'd like to host arch32 mirrors
> there as well. What do you think?
>
I don't mind, but in the end it's up to those who pay for the mirrors.

It does bring up the topic again on how the Arch community will support arch32. Does hosting arch32 mirrors give the impression that we support the fork through our channels, or is that unrelated? How will we otherwise react on support requests for or from arch32? IMO, the announcement is vague on that.

(Personally I would support the idea of having both projects under a common umbrella. But by now arch32 has their own support infrastructure, including forums).

Alad
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [draft] The end of i686 support

Eli Schwartz-2
On 11/06/2017 05:36 AM, Alad Wenter via arch-dev-public wrote:

>> Bartłomiej Piotrowski <[hidden email]> hat am 6.
>> November 2017 um 11:21 geschrieben:
>>
>> Slightly changing the topic... We have plenty of space on our
>> PIA-sponsored mirrors. Given that said fork pretty strictly follows
>> our PKGBUILDs (much alike to ARM team), I'd like to host arch32
>> mirrors there as well. What do you think?
>>
> I don't mind, but in the end it's up to those who pay for the
> mirrors.
>
> It does bring up the topic again on how the Arch community will
> support arch32. Does hosting arch32 mirrors give the impression that
> we support the fork through our channels, or is that unrelated? How
> will we otherwise react on support requests for or from arch32? IMO,
> the announcement is vague on that.
>
> (Personally I would support the idea of having both projects under a
> common umbrella. But by now arch32 has their own support
> infrastructure, including forums).
Well, I doubt they wanted to be caught by surprise and have nothing
ready if we decided not to allow support requests for arch32...

But if we are willing to allow arch32 to be hosted under our umbrella,
the presence of separate infrastructure should not IMHO cause us to go
back on that and therefore cause additional fragmentation that we were
initially okay with avoiding.

--
Eli Schwartz


signature.asc (849 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [draft] The end of i686 support

Allan McRae
On 06/11/17 21:16, Eli Schwartz wrote:

> On 11/06/2017 05:36 AM, Alad Wenter via arch-dev-public wrote:
>>> Bartłomiej Piotrowski <[hidden email]> hat am 6.
>>> November 2017 um 11:21 geschrieben:
>>>
>>> Slightly changing the topic... We have plenty of space on our
>>> PIA-sponsored mirrors. Given that said fork pretty strictly follows
>>> our PKGBUILDs (much alike to ARM team), I'd like to host arch32
>>> mirrors there as well. What do you think?
>>>
>> I don't mind, but in the end it's up to those who pay for the
>> mirrors.
>>
>> It does bring up the topic again on how the Arch community will
>> support arch32. Does hosting arch32 mirrors give the impression that
>> we support the fork through our channels, or is that unrelated? How
>> will we otherwise react on support requests for or from arch32? IMO,
>> the announcement is vague on that.
>>
>> (Personally I would support the idea of having both projects under a
>> common umbrella. But by now arch32 has their own support
>> infrastructure, including forums).
>
> Well, I doubt they wanted to be caught by surprise and have nothing
> ready if we decided not to allow support requests for arch32...
>
> But if we are willing to allow arch32 to be hosted under our umbrella,
> the presence of separate infrastructure should not IMHO cause us to go
> back on that and therefore cause additional fragmentation that we were
> initially okay with avoiding.
>

In all my time here, I can remember one i686 bug that did not also
affect x86_64.  That suggests a common infrastructure is warranted.

A
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [draft] The end of i686 support

Bartłomiej Piotrowski-3
In reply to this post by arch dev mailing list
On 2017-11-06 11:36, Alad Wenter via arch-dev-public wrote:

>> Bartłomiej Piotrowski <[hidden email]> hat am 6. November 2017 um 11:21 geschrieben:
>>
>> Slightly changing the topic... We have plenty of space on our
>> PIA-sponsored mirrors. Given that said fork pretty strictly follows our
>> PKGBUILDs (much alike to ARM team), I'd like to host arch32 mirrors
>> there as well. What do you think?
>>
> I don't mind, but in the end it's up to those who pay for the mirrors.
>
> It does bring up the topic again on how the Arch community will support arch32. Does hosting arch32 mirrors give the impression that we support the fork through our channels, or is that unrelated? How will we otherwise react on support requests for or from arch32? IMO, the announcement is vague on that.
>
> (Personally I would support the idea of having both projects under a common umbrella. But by now arch32 has their own support infrastructure, including forums).
>
> Alad
>

Some clarification. Our mirrors under pkgbuild.com domains shouldn't be
considered official or any better than other mirrors. We just happen to
maintain additional mirrors on these machines, nothing more. Donated
infrastructure can disappear tomorrow (or never) and is not considered
"core" for which we pay ourselves. Hosting any mirror there does not
show our endorsement.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [draft] The end of i686 support

Bartłomiej Piotrowski-3
In reply to this post by Eli Schwartz-2
On 2017-11-06 12:16, Eli Schwartz wrote:
> Well, I doubt they wanted to be caught by surprise and have nothing
> ready if we decided not to allow support requests for arch32...
>
> But if we are willing to allow arch32 to be hosted under our umbrella,
> the presence of separate infrastructure should not IMHO cause us to go
> back on that and therefore cause additional fragmentation that we were
> initially okay with avoiding.

There is no umbrella as long as "archlinux.org" domain is not involved.
I'm not proposing sharing our master mirror from which every server
syncs packages from, but additional spare boxes that are in the areas of
the world where in general we had few mirrors.

(Re-)using our bug tracker is different subject than is unrelated for
now. Let's move away from flyspray before we start being an umbrella.

Bartłomiej
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [draft] The end of i686 support

Doug Newgard-3
In reply to this post by Allan McRae
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 21:25:49 +1000
Allan McRae <[hidden email]> wrote:

> In all my time here, I can remember one i686 bug that did not also
> affect x86_64.  That suggests a common infrastructure is warranted.
>
> A

I haven't been here nearly as long and remember far, far more than one.

Scimmia
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [draft] The end of i686 support

Sébastien Luttringer
On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 09:30 -0600, Doug Newgard wrote:

> On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 21:25:49 +1000
> Allan McRae <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > In all my time here, I can remember one i686 bug that did not also
> > affect x86_64.  That suggests a common infrastructure is warranted.
> >
> > A
>
> I haven't been here nearly as long and remember far, far more than
> one.
>
> Scimmia
Ceph is a living example; since two major versions, it doesn't build on
i686.
This put aside, I'm in favor to offer hosting to ports architectures
which need it.
Cheers,

Sébastien "Seblu" Luttringer


signature.asc (837 bytes) Download Attachment