RFD: kernel-devel package improvements

[Dave Jones]

On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 06:49:58AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
 > Am Sonntag, den 03.04.2005, 23:45 -0400 schrieb Rik van Riel:
 > > On Sun, 3 Apr 2005, Ville Skyttä wrote:
 > > 
 > > > Does not matter.  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/147553
 > > > 
 > > > # rpm -q --qf "%{name}-%{version}-%{release}.%{arch}\n" kernel-devel
 > > > kernel-devel-2.6.11-1.1225_FC4.i686
 > > > # rpm -ivh kernel-devel-2.6.11-1.1225_FC4.i586.rpm
 > > > Preparing...                ########################################### [100%]
 > > >         package kernel-devel-2.6.11-1.1225_FC4 is already installed
 > > 
 > > I am inclined to just not fix this - how important is it to
 > > build the external kernel modules for i586 ?
 > 
 > Okay, if we argue that way we also could stop providing i586 kernels in
 > FC. Okay, okay, no flamewar please, don't take that serious. 

It's going to have to happen eventually. Already we're seeing situations where
users are reporting bugs that we can't diagnose, because
a) We don't have the hardware because its so old
b) There are bugs affecting far more users that get more attention.

At some stage I'd like to see 586 kernel/installer become a spin-off
project by people who actually use it.  The amount of testing the
586 kernel gets these days is very very minimal.

I only recall a single bugzilla against the 586 kernel in many months[*].
Inside Red Hat, 586 kernels get no testing whatsoever before they're
pushed out. (My last 586-era box met with an unfortunate accident
with a certain transatlantic shipper).

Dropping this from Fedora proper would mean we lose support for

- AMD K5
  - Just say no. These things sucked back in 1996.
    Anyone trying to run a 2005 userspace on these is either
	twisted, or in need of something more worthwhile to do.
  
- Pentium 60MHz->200MHz CPUs. (Pre Pentium-Pro).
- AMD K6/K6-2/K6-3
  - These probably make up the bulk of the 586 users, as these
    things sold like hot-cakes when they were launched.
	These might actually still make decent low-usage server/firewall
	type boxes. The question remains whether Fedora is the right
	choice for this role.

- A few wierdo Cyrix's
  - Every time this subject comes up, Alan mentions he still has one.
    I'm sure we could start a collection to replace it with something
	from the later part of the 1990s if needbe.
  - See comments about the K5. Early Cyrix were dreadful in my experience.
    They ran stupidly hot, and performance was very lacklustre.

- IDT Winchips
  - If both the remaining users of this weirdo chip write me,
    I'll mail them a real 686 :)

- Early VIA C3's that lacked CMOV, but were otherwise 686.
  These are the most compelling reason imo to keep 586 for the time-being,
  and even now, the newer C3s are cheap enough that the old ones are almost
  disposable. After a quick google: $37 for a Nehemiah core C3.
  You may even find them cheaper..
  However, this doesn't help the folks who shelled out for the non-socketed
  embedded variants.

For something that gets zero testing, and zero feedback, it's obviously
becoming niche enough that either Fedora is perfect, or all its users
migrated to more lightweight distros already. As much as I'd like to
believe Fedora is perfect, I have a hard time convincing myself that's
the reason for the silence from 586 users.

		Dave

[*] VIA EPIA's randomly crashing due to a broken longhaul module.
(This is broken upstream, and as upstream maintainer of that code,
 I can say it isn't going to get fixed any time soon due to a) lack of hardware
 and b) More important things that need fixing)