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
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 to this
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 solution
(as
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
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?
I
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
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.
I
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
: 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
like asking
for confustion to me
True, but we're way
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:
http://svn.debian.org/viewcvs/kernel/trunk/kernel
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 being
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:
http://svn.debian.org/viewcvs/kernel/trunk/kernel
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
* 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.
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
consider
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,
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 requirements, and the fact that you'd be
hard-pressed
to find
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 --
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:
http://svn.debian.org/viewcvs/kernel/trunk/kernel/source/kernel-source-2.6.8
19 matches
Mail list logo
