Federico Vaga <[email protected]> writes: > As of today, we should be covered by Trixie (LTS + ELTS). However, we > would like to have the possibility of upgrading to Forky. > > Having Forky support x86_64-v1 would give us a more modern system and > a larger margin to both replace our x86_64-v1 hardware and cover the > accelerator RUN (when beams will actually run).
I think that is an argument for adding a 'amd64old' (or x86_64?) port with a lower CPU baseline, possibly even a release arch. I would disagree it is a valid argument against increasing the baseline for the normal amd64 port. If nobody manufacture and sell hardware for some profile any more (*), the overall cost for retaining support for that hardware will likely be overwelmingly offseted by the gains of increased performance (and thus reduced energy consumption) for the remaining fleet. The cost of maintaining the 'amd64old' should also be a factor. I'm not convinced the cost of introducing the 'amd64old' port would offset the cost to discard and replace any x86_64-v1 machines still in use in 20233 when trixie EOLs. It is easy to make the wrong decisions around things where the downside has a large cost that in theory could have been avoided, but in practice catering for that audience will result in a larger overall cost. /Simon (*) I'm not sure this is the case for x86_64-v1, but I would hope we will not drop support for still manufactured amd64-compatible hardware.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
