| 23 Aug 2023 |
 asymmetric | * fyi https://discourse.nixos.org/t/meta-add-meeting-notes-category/32094?u=asymmetric | 14:42:50 |
| asymmetric | what do you think about this? https://github.com/asymmetric/nixpkgs/blob/doc-support-tiers-redux/doc/stdenv/platform-support.chapter.md | 16:11:47 |
| asymmetric | it's a lightweight version of my previous draft pr, trying to avoid getting to deep in the weeds of which platforms belongs to which tier, whihc was proving quixotic | 16:13:16 |
 raitobezarius | i686-linux should appear in that doc | 17:47:17 |
| raitobezarius | We do have minimal (as in minimal image) support for i686-linux atm | 17:47:31 |
| raitobezarius | We should probably invite people who want to get involved in i686 maintenance to step up as we are slowly going the road of removing i686 | 17:47:46 |
| asymmetric | In reply to @raitobezarius:matrix.org
i686-linux should appear in that doc How/where would you mention it? | 17:51:30 |
| asymmetric | In reply to @raitobezarius:matrix.org
We should probably invite people who want to get involved in i686 maintenance to step up as we are slowly going the road of removing i686 Then I'm not sure it's worth adding it to this doc | 17:51:45 |
| raitobezarius | We have folks asking for i686 every time and then | 17:52:01 |
| raitobezarius | It would be nice to have a coherent story to tell them | 17:52:06 |
| raitobezarius | "i686-linux support is currently on an best effort basis given the lack of maintenance, it may be removed in the future." | 17:52:15 |
| asymmetric | Is i686 a special case, or does the above hold for a bunch of other platforms as well? | 17:52:38 |
| raitobezarius | i686 is a special case because it's hardware that fewer and fewer people have but people with strong opinions on computers are always on the chase for i686 supporting distributions | 17:53:26 |
| raitobezarius | we are one of the few last ones who still has some way of supporting i686 | 17:53:39 |
| asymmetric | hah interesting, why is that? who/what uses that? | 17:53:56 |
| raitobezarius | Sustainable computing, 32 bits is all you need, not throwing out perfectly functional 32 bits hardware | 17:59:56 |
| raitobezarius | This type of niche community | 18:00:05 |
| raitobezarius | For me, removing i686 makes sense because the 32 bits kernel is not really maintained | 18:00:22 |
 @penguincoder:matrix.wolfie.pw | Gentoo also supports spending-all-of-your-time-on-a-computer with the i686 architecture! | 18:00:39 |
| raitobezarius | But NixOS is better on that goal because we have a binary cache for i686 | 18:01:00 |
| @penguincoder:matrix.wolfie.pw | I 💯 agree on that point | 18:01:17 |
| raitobezarius | Making it much realistic to use your 32 bits computer, sometimes, even a browser!! | 18:01:25 |
| asymmetric | In reply to @raitobezarius:matrix.org
This type of niche community OK, but then if it's so niche, does it really warrant being on this super short list? | 18:01:53 |
| raitobezarius | Either case, I find the goal cool and noble, but it's complicated to deal with | 18:02:04 |
| asymmetric | I started with a much more comprehensive PR, but gave up because of lack of time to figure out each individual platform | 18:02:23 |
| raitobezarius | In reply to @asymmetric:matrix.dapp.org.uk
OK, but then if it's so niche, does it really warrant being on this super short list? Yes, it's a vocal community and I don't think we are out of space to mention it in one line and I believe i686 is considered as something we ought to support, I want to correct the expectations | 18:02:44 |
| raitobezarius | Your call in all cases I made my point :P | 18:03:29 |
| asymmetric | OK.. for my curiosity, where can i learn more about this community? Is it the people working on uxntal, collapse os, and things like that? | 18:03:39 |
| raitobezarius | I think it's much more spread than that, I am not in those circles to be honest and don't want to mischaracterize, I met some of them on Mastodon complaining about NixOS and 32 bits support | 18:04:30 |
| asymmetric | OK, I think I'm happy to add a mention to i686 also as a signifier of a broader move away from 32bits arches.. is that correct? | 18:06:00 |
