Learn more about these different git repos.
Other Git URLs
Having the package arch be a wee bit different from the ISO filenames has caused some user confusion. Not sure whether a Pungi change is required so filing it here.
Presumably the repos will also need to be changed so the corresponding directories are labeled i686 (like those for the live images) instead of i386.
I have serious doubts making such changes is a good idea, especially this late in the cycle.
This will have implications on mirroring as well.
Replying to [comment:2 rdieter]:
I have serious doubts making such changes is a good idea, especially this late in the cycle. This will have implications on mirroring as well.
I asked about this on one of the mailing lists a while ago and was told that it was too late for F12, but hopefully it can be done for F13. (It should have been changed to 586 for F11, actually, but better late than never.)
We don't delineate releases by their subarch support.
ppc doesn't support the initial PowerPCs, but we don't mark the tree as a power4/ dir. The Sparc port has a sparc/ dir, not a sun4u dir, even though they don't support sun4c/sun4m. We have never marked the i386 dir as i586, even though it's only supported that or better for many years.
What's the point of this besides busywork?
But why then are the live image directories labeled as i686? The labeling should be consistent, whatever it is, otherwise it confuses users. Besides, the work is negligible compared to that for the corresponding package rebuild, and there have been two of those back to back.
I'm guessing the reason the i386 directory wasn't labeled i586 earlier is that most packages were still i386, not that that was a good reason, but at least there was some excuse.
Replying to [comment:5 robatino]:
The live images were named that way when they supported a different set of computers than the base OS release.
Um, no. I said why the directories are labeled that way. There's no reason to make incorrect guesses.
Replying to [comment:4 notting]:
To elaborate further - the name comes from 'uname -i' for the base arch for the release. So, *86 -> i386, ppc64 -> ppc, etc.
To make everything consistent with the minimum amount of work, and also reduce user confusion, how about changing the i686 live image directories to i386, so all the directories are named according to 'uname -i' (which means not having to change the name every time the subarch changes), but name the ISOs by subarch (so Fedora-12-power4-DVD.iso instead of Fedora-12-ppc-DVD.iso, for example)?
Replying to [comment:8 robatino]:
but name the ISOs by subarch (so Fedora-12-power4-DVD.iso instead of Fedora-12-ppc-DVD.iso, for > example)?
Naming it that would be wrong. The ppc DVD works on Apple G4, Apple G5, ppc970, POWER4, POWER5, POWER6, and Cell based machines. 'Fedora-12-ppc-DVD.iso' is the only thing that sums that up, though it doesn't match uname -i output on several of those machines. (PPC is weird in terms of 'basearch').
The problem is that the Live image specifically uses the i686 kernel, it will not work on i586 systems, unlike the i386 tree.
Since F12 will only work on i686, any reason why F12 ISOs should continue to be named i386?
Replying to [comment:11 robatino]:
Only the live image only works on i686. The regular tree has some support for earlier CPUs.
The confusion arises from the packages that are named foo.i686 while the iso name is foo-i386. I got the same question asked to me thrice within a few days in the fedora forum. Might be just worth matching them both.
Login to comment on this ticket.