32 bit Intel hardware effectively EOL [WAS Re: Offer to make a native 32-bit system avaiable]
On Sat, Jan 13, 2024 at 01:01:08PM -0600, rhys wrote: > > > > > > Since you still offer 32bit machines of which Debian has enough of. (64 bit > > kernel probably but it doesn't matter) where it does not matter at all. > We don't particularly need 32 bit hardware at the moment, as far as I know. > Then let me be clearer. > > I should have changed the subject line, because I was not attempting to > address the build problems brought up in the original topic. I have done so > now. > > Let me say that again another way: I was changing the subject of the > conversation away from the build issues mentioned previously. > > I did not mean that offering additional resources would solve known build > problems. > I think this is the crux of the matter: there are several packages which are problematic - packages needing significant memory resources which are marginal on 32 bit hardware (and often are now built on 64 bit hardware). > What I mean was, "Here is a resource that appears to be scarce from my > perspective. You may use it if you wish." > Thank you for your offer: the resource _is_ scarce, not least because 32 bit hardware is now >> 10 years old and have generally been replaced by 64 bit processors for most purposes. Even if you can make it avaiable to the Debian system administrator's team [DSA] and run it 24/7, it might still end up being unreliable. Your willingness to help is noted and appreciated but it may be too late at this point. > > I have and use 32-bit systems. I would like to keep using Debian on those > systems. My intention was to offer a resource that could, potentially, help > ensure that 32-bit systems continue to be supported. In this way, I am > offering to contribute something back to the project that has served me well > for years. > > If that is not useful, that's fine. It's certainly less work for me. It was > just an offer. > Trixie will still provide some 32 bit programs but not an installer. At this point, it might be that 32 bit hardware can be replaced at minimal cost by a rescued 64 bit laptop or desktop and be both more efficient in terms of power used and usefulness. The EOL clock has been ticking on these sysems for a long time and I think i386 is now really EOL. > That is all. > > --J With every good wish, as ever, Andy (amaca...@debian.org)
Re: Offer to make a native 32-bit system avaiable
Thank you for the offer, but no need. It is not needed in Debian infrastructure. On Sat, 13 Jan 2024, 19:18 rhys, wrote: > > > >> I know the difference between a 32-bit processor and a 64-bit processor. > > > > Obviously you don't. Or at least are not aware about consequences. > > > > > > Since you still offer 32bit machines of which Debian has enough of. (64 > bit kernel probably but it doesn't matter) where it does not matter at all. > > Then let me be clearer. > > I should have changed the subject line, because I was not attempting to > address the build problems brought up in the original topic. I have done > so now. > > Let me say that again another way: I was changing the subject of the > conversation away from the build issues mentioned previously. > > I did not mean that offering additional resources would solve known build > problems. > > What I mean was, "Here is a resource that appears to be scarce from my > perspective. You may use it if you wish." > > > You ignore the stated fact in this thread that on a 32bit processor one > process can't get more than 3GB or even less of RAM (regardless of what > memory extension stuff exists). > > Correct. Because that's not relevant to the point I was trying to make. > Please see above. > > > Putting more "32bit machines" on it do not change anything of that > except that there were more machines which cannot build big stuff. > > Correct. > > I have and use 32-bit systems. I would like to keep using Debian on those > systems. My intention was to offer a resource that could, potentially, > help ensure that 32-bit systems continue to be supported. In this way, I > am offering to contribute something back to the project that has served me > well for years. > > If that is not useful, that's fine. It's certainly less work for me. It > was just an offer. > > That is all. > > --J >
Re: Offer to make a native 32-bit system avaiable
>> I know the difference between a 32-bit processor and a 64-bit processor. > > Obviously you don't. Or at least are not aware about consequences. > > > Since you still offer 32bit machines of which Debian has enough of. (64 bit > kernel probably but it doesn't matter) where it does not matter at all. Then let me be clearer. I should have changed the subject line, because I was not attempting to address the build problems brought up in the original topic. I have done so now. Let me say that again another way: I was changing the subject of the conversation away from the build issues mentioned previously. I did not mean that offering additional resources would solve known build problems. What I mean was, "Here is a resource that appears to be scarce from my perspective. You may use it if you wish." > You ignore the stated fact in this thread that on a 32bit processor one > process can't get more than 3GB or even less of RAM (regardless of what > memory extension stuff exists). Correct. Because that's not relevant to the point I was trying to make. Please see above. > Putting more "32bit machines" on it do not change anything of that except > that there were more machines which cannot build big stuff. Correct. I have and use 32-bit systems. I would like to keep using Debian on those systems. My intention was to offer a resource that could, potentially, help ensure that 32-bit systems continue to be supported. In this way, I am offering to contribute something back to the project that has served me well for years. If that is not useful, that's fine. It's certainly less work for me. It was just an offer. That is all. --J
