[arch-dev-public] [draft] The end of i686 support
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/
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.
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
Bartłomiej Piotrowski bpiotrowski@archlinux.org 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
On 11/06/2017 05:36 AM, Alad Wenter via arch-dev-public wrote:
Bartłomiej Piotrowski bpiotrowski@archlinux.org 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.
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 bpiotrowski@archlinux.org 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
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 21:25:49 +1000 Allan McRae allan@archlinux.org 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
On Mon, 2017-11-06 at 09:30 -0600, Doug Newgard wrote:
On Mon, 6 Nov 2017 21:25:49 +1000 Allan McRae allan@archlinux.org 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
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
On 2017-11-06 11:36, Alad Wenter via arch-dev-public wrote:
Bartłomiej Piotrowski bpiotrowski@archlinux.org 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.
participants (6)
-
Alad Wenter
-
Allan McRae
-
Bartłomiej Piotrowski
-
Doug Newgard
-
Eli Schwartz
-
Sébastien Luttringer