On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 07:14:17PM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote: > I concur. Given Simon's analysis and the replies even when combined with > earlier messages, I now see significantly more voices for the opinion: > > i386 primarily exists for running legacy binaries and binary > compatibility with legacy executables is more important than correct > representation of time beyond 2038.
I agree. (And personally I don't care about i386 at all. I'm happy if
we support i386 usecases if this seems reasonable for all involved.)
> I'm inclined to call this consensus now [...]
I'm inclined to call this consensus of the few people who participated
(activly or passivly) in this short & short-lived thread, but I'm not
sure we can call this project wide consensus *yet*.
RFC on d-d-a? That's at least less heavy than a GR and yet way more
visible than just a thread on d-d.
--
cheers,
Holger
⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org
⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C
⠈⠳⣄
Just because other people are also responsible, does not mean you are not
responsible.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
