On 2012-06-01 11:54 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Guillem Jover writes:
>
>> On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 14:03:35 +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
>>> On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Sven Joachim wrote:
>>> > On 2012-05-20 11:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>>> > > Slightly OT but I want
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 11:59 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Ben Hutchings writes:
>
> > On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 11:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> Ben Hutchings writes:
> >> > Eventually (wheezy+2? +3?) we would stop building a kernel package for
> >> > i386.
> >>
> >> As in drop
Ben Hutchings writes:
> On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 11:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Ben Hutchings writes:
>> > Eventually (wheezy+2? +3?) we would stop building a kernel package for
>> > i386.
>>
>> As in drop the i386 arch?
>
> No, keep i386 userland only. Though we might consider reduc
Guillem Jover writes:
> On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 14:03:35 +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
>> On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Sven Joachim wrote:
>> > On 2012-05-20 11:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> > > Slightly OT but I wanted to mention it for its similarity:
>> > >
>> > > One thing th
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 07:03:53PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 07:27:21PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> > * Ben Hutchings , 2012-05-20, 03:16:
> > >5. Installer for i386 prefers amd64 kernel on any capable machine
> > >(that's a one-line change!) and adds amd64 as secondary
>
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 14:34:34 -0700, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 08:51:17PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 09:18:21PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> > > On 2012-05-22 20:40 +0200, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > > > On 22/05/12 19:24, Sven Joachim wrote:
Le Tue, May 22, 2012 at 04:01:29PM +0100, Ben Hutchings a écrit :
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 01:25:21PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> > Ben Hutchings dixit:
> >
> > >> > Eventually (wheezy+2? +3?) we would stop building a kernel package for
> > >> > i386.
> > >>
> > >> As in drop the i386 arch?
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 08:51:17PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 09:18:21PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> > On 2012-05-22 20:40 +0200, Simon McVittie wrote:
> > > On 22/05/12 19:24, Sven Joachim wrote:
> > >
> > >> and anything that uses libx86 won't work either (#492470).
..
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 08:08:29PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Hm, 2035 or thereabounds sounds good. ;-) Then let’s talk again.
Are you volunteering to maintain the i386 architecture until 2035, or
volunteering Ben to do it? ☺
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.or
Ben Hutchings dixit:
>> >> As in drop the i386 arch?
>> >
>> >No, keep i386 userland only.
>>
>> Oh, definitely not! Please keep this runnable on at least
>> machines such as Soekris (486-compatible), Pentium-M, etc.
>
>For ever and ever and ever?
Hm, 2035 or thereabounds sounds good. ;-) Then l
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 09:18:21PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2012-05-22 20:40 +0200, Simon McVittie wrote:
>
> > On 22/05/12 19:24, Sven Joachim wrote:
> >
> >> and anything that uses libx86 won't work either (#492470).
> >
> > Is this the right bug? According to the reporter's reportbug Sys
On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 14:03:35 +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Sven Joachim wrote:
> > On 2012-05-20 11:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > > Slightly OT but I wanted to mention it for its similarity:
> > >
> > > One thing that should be tested and then do
On 2012-05-22 20:40 +0200, Simon McVittie wrote:
> On 22/05/12 19:24, Sven Joachim wrote:
>
>> and anything that uses libx86 won't work either (#492470).
>
> Is this the right bug? According to the reporter's reportbug System
> Information, he's running libx86/i386 on one of the i386 kernel
> flav
On 22/05/12 19:24, Sven Joachim wrote:
>> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 07:27:21PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
>>> We have still some software that doesn't work with 64-bit kernel,
>>> and (worse!) some maintainers claiming it's not a bug.
> The most prominent example is probably virtualbox (#456391)
That
On 2012-05-22 20:03 +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 07:27:21PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
>> * Ben Hutchings , 2012-05-20, 03:16:
>> >5. Installer for i386 prefers amd64 kernel on any capable machine
>> >(that's a one-line change!) and adds amd64 as secondary
>> >architecture i
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 07:27:21PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> * Ben Hutchings , 2012-05-20, 03:16:
> >5. Installer for i386 prefers amd64 kernel on any capable machine
> >(that's a one-line change!) and adds amd64 as secondary
> >architecture if this is selected.
>
> We have still some software th
* Ben Hutchings , 2012-05-20, 03:16:
5. Installer for i386 prefers amd64 kernel on any capable machine
(that's a one-line change!) and adds amd64 as secondary architecture if
this is selected.
We have still some software that doesn't work with 64-bit kernel, and
(worse!) some maintainers clai
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 01:25:21PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Ben Hutchings dixit:
>
> >> > Eventually (wheezy+2? +3?) we would stop building a kernel package for
> >> > i386.
> >>
> >> As in drop the i386 arch?
> >
> >No, keep i386 userland only.
>
> Oh, definitely not! Please keep this ru
Ben Hutchings dixit:
>> > Eventually (wheezy+2? +3?) we would stop building a kernel package for
>> > i386.
>>
>> As in drop the i386 arch?
>
>No, keep i386 userland only.
Oh, definitely not! Please keep this runnable on at least
machines such as Soekris (486-compatible), Pentium-M, etc.
>> > h
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 02:19:09PM +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
> > By the way, are there plans to drop the support of the i386 architecture
> > with
> > kFreeBSD as well ?
> I thought we were discussing amd64 being the default architecture for new
> installations, rather than the removal of the i
On 21/05/2012 08:45, Charles Plessy wrote:
> Le Mon, May 21, 2012 at 12:30:11AM +0100, Ben Hutchings a écrit :
>> On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 14:02 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd love to see that happen someday, but at the moment, new x86 systems
>>> still get sold that don't support 64-bit. No
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 01:11:21PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
>On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Wookey wrote:
>>On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 12:30:11AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>>>
>>>(Should we consider gathering selected hardware specs in popcon?)
>>
>>Yes please. This would really help arm people too
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Miles Bader wrote:
> Paul Wise writes:
>> There is smolt for that, but folks haven't packaged it for Debian yet:
>>
>> https://fedorahosted.org/smolt/
>> http://bugs.debian.org/435058
>
> Hmm... from "http://smolts.org/static/stats/stats.html":
>
> The statistics
Paul Wise writes:
> There is smolt for that, but folks haven't packaged it for Debian yet:
>
> https://fedorahosted.org/smolt/
> http://bugs.debian.org/435058
Hmm... from "http://smolts.org/static/stats/stats.html":
The statistics script is no longer running and creating new
data. We're in
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Wookey wrote:
> +++ Ben Hutchings [2012-05-21 00:30 +0100]:
>>
>> (Should we consider gathering selected hardware specs in popcon?)
>
> Yes please. This would really help arm people too. We currently have
> to guess how many people we are cutting off when minimum su
On Sun, 20 May 2012, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Ben Hutchings writes:
> > If by 'plain x86' you mean PCs with 32-bit processors, we would no
> > longer support them - *eventually*.
>
> Excactly like how we no longer support pure i386 systems (as opposed to
> i486 or later). And with the same sort of
Le Mon, May 21, 2012 at 12:30:11AM +0100, Ben Hutchings a écrit :
> On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 14:02 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> >
> > I'd love to see that happen someday, but at the moment, new x86 systems
> > still get sold that don't support 64-bit. Notably, many low-power Atom
> > processors sti
+++ Ben Hutchings [2012-05-21 00:30 +0100]:
>
> (Should we consider gathering selected hardware specs in popcon?)
Yes please. This would really help arm people too. We currently have
to guess how many people we are cutting off when minimum support is
moved forward.
Wookey
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 05:39:06PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > > > No, keep i386 userland only. Though we might consider reducing even
> > > > > that to a 'partial architecture' that has only libraries (similar to
> > > > > ia32-libs today, only cleaner).
> > > > Don't you believe in x32?
>
On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 14:02 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
> Ben Hutchings wrote:
> >On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 11:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> >> Ben Hutchings writes:
> >>> Eventually (wheezy+2? +3?) we would stop building a kernel package
> >>> for i386.
> >>
> >> As in drop the i386 arch?
Ben Hutchings wrote:
>On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 11:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>> Ben Hutchings writes:
>>> Eventually (wheezy+2? +3?) we would stop building a kernel package
>>> for i386.
>>
>> As in drop the i386 arch?
>
> No, keep i386 userland only. Though we might consider reducing e
Marco wrote:
>On May 20, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
>> No, keep i386 userland only. Though we might consider reducing even
>> that to a 'partial architecture' that has only libraries (similar to
>> ia32-libs today, only cleaner).
>Don't you believe in x32?
Puke. Please, no. If it had happened back w
Ben Hutchings writes:
> If by 'plain x86' you mean PCs with 32-bit processors, we would no
> longer support them - *eventually*.
Excactly like how we no longer support pure i386 systems (as opposed to
i486 or later). And with the same sort of criteria, I suspect. Note that
Ben is talking about
On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 18:24 +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 02:00:21PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 11:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > > Ben Hutchings writes:
> > >
> > > > Most new PCs have an Intel or AMD 64-bit processor, and
> > > > popco
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 06:24:23PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
> > > > Eventually (wheezy+2? +3?) we would stop building a kernel package for
> > > > i386.
> > >
> > > As in drop the i386 arch?
> >
> > No, keep i386 userland only. Though we might consider reducing even
> > that to a 'partial archi
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 02:00:21PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 11:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> > Ben Hutchings writes:
> >
> > > Most new PCs have an Intel or AMD 64-bit processor, and
> > > popcon.debian.org shows amd64 numbers almost matching i386.
> > >
> > >
* Marco d'Itri (m...@linux.it) [120520 17:31]:
> On May 20, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> > > > No, keep i386 userland only. Though we might consider reducing even
> > > > that to a 'partial architecture' that has only libraries (similar to
> > > > ia32-libs today, only cleaner).
> > > Don't you beli
On May 20, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > No, keep i386 userland only. Though we might consider reducing even
> > > that to a 'partial architecture' that has only libraries (similar to
> > > ia32-libs today, only cleaner).
> > Don't you believe in x32?
> What do you mean, 'believe'? I'm aware it ma
On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 16:41 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
> On May 20, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>
> > No, keep i386 userland only. Though we might consider reducing even
> > that to a 'partial architecture' that has only libraries (similar to
> > ia32-libs today, only cleaner).
> Don't you believe in x
On May 20, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> No, keep i386 userland only. Though we might consider reducing even
> that to a 'partial architecture' that has only libraries (similar to
> ia32-libs today, only cleaner).
Don't you believe in x32?
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 11:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Ben Hutchings writes:
>
> > Most new PCs have an Intel or AMD 64-bit processor, and
> > popcon.debian.org shows amd64 numbers almost matching i386.
> >
> > For some time we have also provided the amd64 kernel for i386, identical
> >
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2012-05-20 11:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
>
>> Slightly OT but I wanted to mention it for its similarity:
>>
>> One thing that should be tested and then documented prominently as yay
>> or nay in the wheezy upgrade notes is wether
On 2012-05-20 11:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Slightly OT but I wanted to mention it for its similarity:
>
> One thing that should be tested and then documented prominently as yay
> or nay in the wheezy upgrade notes is wether one can cross-grade from
> i386 to amd64 using multiarch. We
On 05/20/2012 10:16 AM, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Does anyone see a problem with the above, in particular points 1 and 2?
>
I agree with all you said (you know better than I), but what
I would really love to see would be the installer warning
people when they try to install the i386 version on a 64
Ben Hutchings writes:
> Most new PCs have an Intel or AMD 64-bit processor, and
> popcon.debian.org shows amd64 numbers almost matching i386.
>
> For some time we have also provided the amd64 kernel for i386, identical
> in all but the package metadata. This has not always been perfectly
> compa
On Sun, 20 May 2012 06:11:16 +0200, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
>On May 20, Ben Hutchings wrote:
>> Then in wheezy+1:
>> 3. amd64 kernel flavour for i386 dropped.
>Why can't we use the multiarch package in wheezy?
Because changes of this magnitude less than a month before the first
target
On May 20, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Then in wheezy+1:
> 3. amd64 kernel flavour for i386 dropped.
Why can't we use the multiarch package in wheezy?
--
ciao,
Marco
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
On Sat, 2012-05-19 at 19:44 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> Hi Ben,
>
> On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 03:16:15AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > Most new PCs have an Intel or AMD 64-bit processor, and
> > popcon.debian.org shows amd64 numbers almost matching i386.
>
> > So in wheezy I would like to see:
Hi Ben,
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 03:16:15AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> Most new PCs have an Intel or AMD 64-bit processor, and
> popcon.debian.org shows amd64 numbers almost matching i386.
> So in wheezy I would like to see:
> 1. Default architecture (top of the list for installation media/manu
Most new PCs have an Intel or AMD 64-bit processor, and
popcon.debian.org shows amd64 numbers almost matching i386.
For some time we have also provided the amd64 kernel for i386, identical
in all but the package metadata. This has not always been perfectly
compatible with i386 userland, but split
50 matches
Mail list logo
