Neil Roeth writes:
> Nice summary.
> > * Drop i386 support mostly. 'i386' architecture becomes 'i486'.
> > Start a 'Debian-real-i386' subproject, with a 'real-i386' architecture,
> > but don't require that any packages build on it in order to go into
> > testing or to release Debian; it would be a bonus architecture, with
> > a limited number of packages avaiable.
> >
> > This seems to be the most immediately feasible option. Several people
> > have already indicated their approval of this idea. I wouldn't wait for
> > sarge to release, but do it ASAP. (Since C++ is already semi-broken on
> > 386s, this would likely make things better for i386 in fact; at least
> > it would have a specific functioning project.)
> >
> > This is assuming someone with a real i386 is willing to lead a
> > 'Debian-real-i386' project (which wouldn't be a huge amount of work,
> > really; upstream support is usually pretty good, you don't have to actually
> > compile packages on your slow 386, just test them there, and you don't have
> > to worry about ABI compatibility with anyone much). If nobody is willing
> > then I'd say there just isn't enough support and 386 should be dropped
> > outright.
>
> I am in favor of dropping the 386 altogether, but this is acceptable as an
> alternative. If people would rather work on keeping 386 software up to date
> than just run woody forever, more power to them. It doesn't seem like it
> would cost much on anyone else's part to enable this.
What are the steps to be taken to move to i486-linux? Has this to be
decided on debian-policy?
Would it be ok to drop i386-linux until somebody starts it again?
Matthias
