On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 05:43:48PM -0400, William Lachance wrote:
> On 2015-10-08 5:26 PM, Mike Hommey wrote:
> >On Thu, Oct 08, 2015 at 12:42:11PM -0700, Daniel Holbert wrote:
> >>On 10/08/2015 11:34 AM, Daniel Holbert wrote:
> >>
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1204920#c1
> >>
> >>The numbers there show that ~40% of our Linux users are using the
> >>32-bit version. (on release & beta channels) That's more than I was
> >>expecting.
> >>
> >>Given that, I'd be uncomfortable with option (3) ("turn off Linux32
> >>builds + tests entirely"). I'd also be uncomfortable with option (2)
> >>(doing builds but no tests), because then 40% of our linux users would
> >>be getting un-tested bits. (Likely-working since they work on other
> >>platforms, but who knows.)
> >>
> >>Option (1) (running tests occasionally) seems doable though, and
> >>depending on how infrequent "occasionally" is, it seems like it could
> >>get us cost-savings that are close to those from option (2).
> >
> >Now the interesting question, is how many of those users are running on
> >64-bits systems, and are only using 32-bits builds because that's what
> >they downloaded back when
mozilla.org didn't even offer the 64-bits
> >version, which brings to the additional question: would it be worth
> >forcing 32->64-bit upgrades of Firefox.
>
> Aren't the vast majority of users running a version of Firefox distributed
> by their vendor (of which Ubuntu probably has the largest share, see e.g.
>
http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikimedia/squids/SquidReportOperatingSystems.htm)?
That's the question I'd like to see answered the most. ISTR having been