Re: [PATCH 1/2] docs/about: Deprecate 32-bit x86 hosts and qemu-system-i386

On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 08:59:52AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 03:19:20AM -0500, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 08:49:09AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote: >>> On 27/02/2023 21.12, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >>>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 11:50:07AM +0000, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: >>>>> I feel like we should have separate deprecation entries for the >>>>> i686 host support, and for qemu-system-i386 emulator binary, as >>>>> although they're related they are independant features with >>>>> differing impact. eg removing qemu-system-i386 affects all >>>>> host architectures, not merely 32-bit x86 host, so I think we >>>>> can explain the impact more clearly if we separate them. >>>> >>>> Removing qemu-system-i386 seems ok to me - I think qemu-system-x86_64 is >>>> a superset. >>>> >>>> Removing support for building on 32 bit systems seems like a pity - it's >>>> one of a small number of ways to run 64 bit binaries on 32 bit systems, >>>> and the maintainance overhead is quite small. >>> >>> Note: We're talking about 32-bit *x86* hosts here. Do you really think that >>> someone is still using QEMU usermode emulation >>> to run 64-bit binaries on a 32-bit x86 host?? ... If so, I'd be very surprised! >> >> I don't know - why x86 specifically? One can build a 32 bit binary on any host. >> I think 32 bit x86 environments are just more common in the cloud. > > Can you point to anything that backs up that assertion. Clouds I've > seen always give you a 64-bit environment, and many OS no longer > even ship 32-bit installable media. Sorry about being unclear. I meant that it seems easier to run CI in the cloud in a 32 bit x64 environment than get a 32 bit ARM environment.