On Tue, 6 Dec 2022, Stephan Kulow wrote:
On 06.12.22 10:23, Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar wrote:
On Tue, 2022-12-06 at 10:16 +0100, Stephan Kulow wrote:
On 06.12.22 09:40, Michael Str?der wrote:
"Someone" has decided to go with x86_64-v2, forcing others to either do more work or buy new hardware. And now you blame the "others" to expect "somebody else" to do the work for them. I'm also wondering why SUSE thinks anybody in the community would appreciate this move. Overall it's very discouraging.
I for one still need to hear *any* argument to duplicate x86_64. The only one I heard was "factory first" - but how do the compiler flags matter between code streams that will soon enough diverge in compiler versions wasn't really explained at all.
so, your proposed solution would be to just kick i586 to the curbs (ports) and leave the x86_64 port at baseline? Or go v3? or not build x86_64 for baseline and go v2 in TW? or ignore everything and let it all just the way it is? I would indeed prefer if we dropped i586 before we touched x86_64. And having v2/v3 biarch repo sounds appealing to me - but obviously is a little harder to get.
Just to (again) chime in here, my prefered solution would be to continue
building Tumbleweed with -v0 and build ALP with -v3 (OK, for other
reasons that's going to be -v2). That is, "break" the Factory-First
policy here. It's not that the prjconf is the same between Factory
and SLE and this detail could be confined to a prjconf difference
(in practice I hope to configure GCC itself to a different default).
But as you say - politics :/
But sure, having v2/v3 repos for select packages and those auto-selected
would have been my cheap solution for those who want that on Tumbleweed.
Thanks,
Richard.
--
Richard Biener