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
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 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 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?
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 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 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
23 matches
Mail list logo
