Hi Doug: The reason is pretty simple: we develop embedded software for a 32-bit platform and compile for both the target (using a cross compiler) and also natively so we can run unit and integration tests on our CentOS workstations. Our application is not (yet) 64-bit compatible. Now I know I can run a 32-bit compiler on a 64-bit host OS, but we also need to support a bunch of older projects on our 32-bit infrastructure and we haven’t taken the time to qualify them all on x86_64. I’m in the process of automating the CentOS 7 x86_64 installation but have hit a few snags along the way. Eventually (3-6 months) we will be moving to 64-bit CentOS 7 (or possibly 64-bit Ubuntu), but until then we will continue to use 32-bit CentOS 6. So if it’s not too much of a hassle, I would really appreciate if you can turn the 32-bit CentOS 6 builds back on.
Thanks, Alfred > On Apr 11, 2017, at 8:26, Doug Robinson <doug.robin...@wandisco.com> wrote: > > Alfred: > > You can blame me for the decision to prune out the 32-bit platform support > from WANdisco. > > I can easily admit to being premature, but I'm finding less demand for 32-bit > and really > question why anyone would continue to run 32-bit at this time? If you could > help me understand > then perhaps I can reverse that decision... > > Thank you. > > Doug > > On Mon, Apr 10, 2017 at 10:21 AM, Alfred von Campe <alf...@von-campe.com > <mailto:alf...@von-campe.com>> wrote: > We are not quite ready to move to CentOS 7 yet, but hopefully will soon. > However, I don’t understand why the dependencies are different for i686 > and x86_64 on the same CentOS 6 platform for Subversion 1.9.X. Up to > version 1.9.4-1, WANdisco provided binaries for both architectures. > > Alfred > > > > On Apr 7, 2017, at 20:46, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nka...@gmail.com > > <mailto:nka...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 7, 2017 at 9:57 AM, Alfred von Campe <alf...@von-campe.com > > <mailto:alf...@von-campe.com>> wrote: > >> Does anyone on this list have a pointer to a repo that hosts the latest > >> 32-bit (i686) Subversion binaries for RHEL 6? I’ve been using the > >> WANdisco SVN Repo 1.9 > >> (http://opensource.wandisco.com/centos/6/svn-1.9/RPMS > >> <http://opensource.wandisco.com/centos/6/svn-1.9/RPMS>), but it only has > >> version 1.9.5-1 for 64-bit (x86_64). The latest 32-bit binaries in that > >> repo are for version 1.9.4-1, which are almost a year old. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Alfred > > > > I tried, some time back, to publish SRPM building tools for > > subersion-1.9.x and 1.8.x over at https://github.com/nkadel/ > > <https://github.com/nkadel/>. I > > eventually had to throw in the towel as the component dependencies for > > compiling the latest Subversion exceeded my time to backport and > > provide separate, system compatible builds of various libraries. But > > you're welcome to poke them and take a shot at getting it to RHEL 6. > > > > I also admit that with RHEL 5 and CentOS 5 obsolete, CentOS 6 has also > > gotten quite long in the tooth. Can you update to CentOS 7? > > > > > -- > DOUGLAS B ROBINSON SENIOR PRODUCT MANAGER > > T +1 925 396 1125 <> > E doug.robin...@wandisco.com <mailto:doug.robin...@wandisco.com> > > World Leader in Active Data Replication™ > Find out more wandisco.com <http://wandisco.com/> > THIS MESSAGE AND ANY ATTACHMENTS ARE CONFIDENTIAL, PROPRIETARY AND MAY BE > PRIVILEGED > > If this message was misdirected, WANdisco, Inc. and its subsidiaries, > ("WANdisco") does not waive any confidentiality or privilege. If you are not > the intended recipient, please notify us immediately and destroy the message > without disclosing its contents to anyone. Any distribution, use or copying > of this email or the information it contains by other than an intended > recipient is unauthorized. The views and opinions expressed in this email > message are the author's own and may not reflect the views and opinions of > WANdisco, unless the author is authorized by WANdisco to express such views > or opinions on its behalf. All email sent to or from this address is subject > to electronic storage and review by WANdisco. Although WANdisco operates > anti-virus programs, it does not accept responsibility for any damage > whatsoever caused by viruses being passed. >
