On 6/3/19 6:50 AM, Trevor Hemsley via CentOS-devel wrote: > On 03/06/2019 12:32, Fabian Arrotin wrote: >> On 03/06/2019 09:38, Marcin Juszkiewicz wrote: >>> CentOS 7 supports several architectures: >>> >>> - x86-64 >>> - aarch64 >>> - ppc64le >>> - armhfp >>> - i386 >>> - ppc64 >>> - power9 > > Perhaps we should start by looking at that list and deciding which of > them will be supported in el8. > > Are all of ppc64le/ppc64 and power9 all going to be valid architectures > in el8? > > Is it now time to retire i386 - 32 bit Intel? The last mainstream Intel > processors that were 32 bit only were manufactured in 2005. Yes, there > are some outliers like laptop chips and a few ancient atoms that were 32 > bit only for a few more years but the majority of 32 bit only processors > are now 14 years old and will be 24 by the time CentOS 8 goes EOL. I > would suggest that this is put out to grass and left to die. CentOS 7 > i386 will be still be around until 2024 when those 32 bit processors > will be close to 20 years old. Yes .. no more i386 as a separate arch. Power9 is now part of ppc64le proper .. in el7 it required a specail kernel and qemu .. in el8, power8 ppc64le and power9 ppc64le are in the same tree. There is no ppc64 So the arches are x86_64 (with i686 multi library support), ppc64le (for both p8 and p9), aarch64 (all upstream arches as well) .. and armhfp as a secondary / unique arch. We do not currently have a plan to build s390x .. but I would not rule out the possibility. All but armhfp is also supported as an arch in RHEL-8. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20190604/a87a36cb/attachment-0008.sig>