Re: Dropping 386 support

On Sat, 2004-10-23 at 18:35 +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 11:34:50AM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote: [...] > > If someone from the kernel or glibc team had access to a real 386, we > > might be able to make (userspace) support work. Would it be possible to > > get access t

Re: Dropping 386 support

Am 2004-10-22 11:34:50, schrieb Andres Salomon: > If someone from the kernel or glibc team had access to a real 386, we > might be able to make (userspace) support work. Would it be possible to > get access to this machine? Need a i80386 Mainboard ? I have one runing NetBSD :-) with 4 MB of mem

Re: Dropping 386 support

On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 11:34:50AM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote: > On Fri, 2004-10-22 at 00:31 +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > > Has the current image compiled the patch in? (I haven't checked > > that yet) > > Yes, it does. > > > If yes, there should be no problem at all to implement this solut

Re: Dropping 386 support

On Fri, 2004-10-22 at 00:31 +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 06:01:31PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote: > > The kernel team is considering dropping 386 support (the 80386 > > processor, not the i386 arch) from Debian. Currently, in order to > > support 386, we include a 486 e

Re: Dropping 386 support

On Sat, Oct 02, 2004 at 06:01:31PM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote: > The kernel team is considering dropping 386 support (the 80386 > processor, not the i386 arch) from Debian. Currently, in order to > support 386, we include a 486 emulation patch (the patch can be viewed [...] > Comments? Thoughts?

Re: Dropping 386 support

peter green wrote: > what about changing the 486 emulation kernel patch so that it completely > disables itself on non 386 processors Did you read the patch? I thougth that was already the case from how it is invoked. > this way it would only have security issues on pure 386 which wouldn't be >

RE: Dropping 386 support

L PROTECTED] > Sent: 04 October 2004 14:33 > To: Peter Green > Cc: Adeodato Simó; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Dropping 386 support > > > peter green wrote: > > calling stuff i386 when it will not run natively on a 386 seems > l

Re: Dropping 386 support

peter green wrote: > calling stuff i386 when it will not run natively on a 386 seems like asking > for confustion to me True, but we're way to close to a release to fix *that*. And I'm not sure that we could easily fix binary-i386 at all.. > why and when was this instruction emulation needed in

Re: Dropping 386 support

On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 07:54:12PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > Steve Langasek wrote: > > The d-i images really need to be built from kernel-image packages that > > are in the archive at the time we ship. Optimizing for 486 isn't a very > > good reason on its own to force another kernel build cycle.

Re: Dropping 386 support

On Sun, 2004-10-03 at 05:01, Andres Salomon wrote: > Reasons for keeping 386 support: I am not sure if this is still true. But in the past, "386" was the safest bet to run any kind of non-Intel processor, especially notebooks. regards, -- Rahmat M. Samik-Ibrahim -- vLSM.org -- http://rms46.v

RE: Dropping 386 support

[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 03 October 2004 23:19 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: Dropping 386 support > > > * Joey Hess [Sun, 03 Oct 2004 12:54:21 -0400]: > > Andres Salomon wrote: > > > Given d-i's memory requirem

Re: Dropping 386 support

Steve Langasek wrote: > The d-i images really need to be built from kernel-image packages that > are in the archive at the time we ship. Optimizing for 486 isn't a very > good reason on its own to force another kernel build cycle. I had not even considered the impact of changing the optimisation,

Re: Dropping 386 support

On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 12:19:16AM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote: > * Joey Hess [Sun, 03 Oct 2004 12:54:21 -0400]: > > Andres Salomon wrote: > > > Given d-i's memory requirements, and the fact that you'd be hard-pressed > > > to find a (desktop) 386 system with more than 16 megs of memory, I don't > >

Re: Dropping 386 support

* Joey Hess [Sun, 03 Oct 2004 12:54:21 -0400]: > Andres Salomon wrote: > > Given d-i's memory requirements, and the fact that you'd be hard-pressed > > to find a (desktop) 386 system with more than 16 megs of memory, I don't > > consider debian 3.1 to be a viable candidate for installing onto a 386

Re: Dropping 386 support

Andres Salomon wrote: > Given d-i's memory requirements, and the fact that you'd be hard-pressed > to find a (desktop) 386 system with more than 16 megs of memory, I don't > consider debian 3.1 to be a viable candidate for installing onto a 386. > Also, note that if we do drop 386 support, I will r

Re: Dropping 386 support

Andres Salomon wrote: > Hi, > > The kernel team is considering dropping 386 support (the 80386 > processor, not the i386 arch) from Debian. Currently, in order to > support 386, we include a 486 emulation patch (the patch can be viewed > from here: >

Re: Dropping 386 support

On Sun, Oct 03, 2004 at 08:55:24AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote: > > Reasons for dropping 386 support are as follows: > > * d-i currently requires at least 20 megs of ram to install. My 386 > > had 4 megs of ram, which required using lowmem w/ potato's installer. I > > don't see standard d-i as

Re: Dropping 386 support

Andres Salomon wrote: > Hi, > > The kernel team is considering dropping 386 support (the 80386 > processor, not the i386 arch) from Debian. Currently, in order to > support 386, we include a 486 emulation patch (the patch can be viewed > from here: >