Arthur Zamarin <arthurzam@gentoo.org> writes:

> Hi all, this will be a long mail, and might be confusing, I'll try to
> organize it, but this is a mess, so bear with me.
> [...]
> ======== 32-bit arches ========
>
> This includes stable arches x86, arm, ppc, sparc32, dev arches s390, and
> maybe more. Those are in much worse situation, with a mess on various
> fronts, some of them super hard to continue support. For example
> qtwebengine is less and less likely to manage to compile on a
> real-hardware, and not 32-bit chroot on 64-bit host. Arch Team want to
> minimize our work on those arches, meaning mass-destable and even
> mass-dekeyword, with potentially full drop of stable status.
>
> ======== x86 ========
>
> Stable 32-bit arch. I'll be honest, I don't believe at all this should
> be stable arch anymore. I propose making it dev arch, and mass-dekeyword
> stuff we got because of inertia. This arch is close to HW die. (let's
> not talk about i486 vs i686).

I think the mfpmath=sse thing [0] makes this a bit better but I still
sympathise with your point.

[0] https://public-inbox.gentoo.org/gentoo-dev/ce894afe6c2b324fef012da9bb9387cfde7aed03.camel@gentoo.org/