Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

On Thu, 19 May 2016, Ian Jackson wrote: > So you have a broader idea of what should be RC, in abstract terms, > than I do. > > But, do you think that this specific bug should be RC ? >From a cursory look at it, yes, I would say so. And the patch looks like really short, so not too hard to

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

Raphael Hertzog writes ("Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor"): > Agreed. For me, the RC severity means "this should be fixed (before next > stable release)". The possibility of auto-removal implemented by the > release team is just a

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

Hi, On Thu, 19 May 2016, Ansgar Burchardt wrote: > If we treated architectures in the same way, I wonder if we would have > any architecture other than amd64... After all that will guide our > users to other, working, architectures. > > (No, I don't find "let's just drop Qt/GNOME/X11/ncurses" a

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

Ian Jackson writes: > IMO the way to read "is a bug RC" is "if the bug is not fixed, would > Debian be better without the package, than with the buggy package". > This calls for weighing the harm caused by the bug to the people > affected, against the benefit of the package to other users. > > In

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

Guillem Jover writes ("Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor"): > On Wed, 2016-05-18 at 16:57:48 +, Sune Vuorela wrote: > > On 2016-05-18, Julien Cristau <jcris...@debian.org> wrote: > > > Why aren't those bugs RC? > >

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

Hi! On Wed, 2016-05-18 at 16:57:48 +, Sune Vuorela wrote: > On 2016-05-18, Julien Cristau wrote: > > Why aren't those bugs RC? That's indeed a good question! It would probably be best if a neutral party would do that. :) > Either we give both users on old hardware a

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

On 2016-05-18, Julien Cristau wrote: > Why aren't those bugs RC? Either we give both users on old hardware a bad experience or all the users on new hardware a bad experience. /Sune

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

On Wed, May 18, 2016 at 02:41:51 +0200, Guillem Jover wrote: > Hi! > > On Tue, 2016-05-10 at 19:17:15 -0300, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer > wrote: > > On Saturday 07 May 2016 13:23:30 Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > Last year it was decided to increase the minimum CPU features for the > > >

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

Hi! On Tue, 2016-05-10 at 19:17:15 -0300, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: > On Saturday 07 May 2016 13:23:30 Ben Hutchings wrote: > > Last year it was decided to increase the minimum CPU features for the > > i386 architecture to 686-class in the stretch release cycle. This > > means

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

Gosh, that makes my eyes tear up a little.   Bye bye Pentium. D. On Sat, 2016-05-07 at 13:23 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > Last year it was decided to increase the minimum CPU features for the > i386 architecture to 686-class in the stretch release cycle.  This > means dropping support for

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

On Thu, 12 May 2016 07:36:44 +0200 Marc Haber wrote: > I would ask the maintainers to do so. I think that only a small > fraction of NEWS.Debian actually needs to be in the "release notes". How about add notes for release notes?

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

On Sat, 2016-05-14 at 10:01 +, Niels Thykier wrote: > For future reference, we updated the release-notes after the Jessie > release. Examples include: > > * > https://www.debian.org/releases/jessie/amd64/release-notes/ch-information.en.html#systemd-sigkill-regression >- Discovered post

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

Christoph Biedl: > Niels Thykier wrote... > >> I appreciate it was (hopefully) not your intention. But with that >> remark you make me feel like I have wasted my time and effort trying to >> the write the Jessie release notes. > > Niels, > > offending you was certainly the least of my

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

Marc Haber: > On Mon, 9 May 2016 18:42:52 +, Niels Thykier > wrote: >> [...] > > Maybe we should introduce a BTS tag "release notes" so that (1) bug > reports of such gotchas can be flagged appropriately and (2) it is > easily possible to track such reports and thus

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 12:28:07PM +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote: > If you wonder about the wording of the last paragraph: > > -- > > How to exploit the Bible for weight loss: > > Pr28:25: he that putteth his trust in the ʟᴏʀᴅ shall be made fat. > > That proverb (I guess quoted from the King

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

On Thu, 12 May 2016, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Perhaps that could be addressed by extending apt-listchanges with an > option to take the APT auto-install flag into account (man apt-mark) and > skip packages that are flagged as auto-installed. Yes, I thought the same and I thus filed #824168.

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

On Thu, May 12, 2016 at 10:32:57AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > Quoting Adam Borowski (2016-05-12 08:16:29) > > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 01:54:04PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > >> If someone has time and willingness, reviewing the contents of > >> NEWS.Debian across all packages for the stable

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 09:26:18PM +0200, Adam Borowski wrote: > Too bad, there has been a misguided change to apt-listchanges recently: if Somehow I doubt you will convince anyone to follow you into the light if you keep that "I know how it should be, subject to my will you misguided maintainer

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

Quoting Adam Borowski (2016-05-12 08:16:29) > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 01:54:04PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >> If someone has time and willingness, reviewing the contents of >> NEWS.Debian across all packages for the stable -> testing delta >> before the release sounds like a very useful thing

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 01:54:04PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > If someone has time and willingness, reviewing the contents of NEWS.Debian > across all packages for the stable -> testing delta before the release > sounds like a very useful thing to do. >From what I've seen, this is very close to

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

On Wed, 11 May 2016 13:54:04 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >Marc Haber writes: >> On Wed, 11 May 2016 10:18:05 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > >>> NEWS.Debian was the solution created for that problem, and it's not >>> bad. It can be a

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

Marc Haber writes: > On Wed, 11 May 2016 10:18:05 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >> NEWS.Debian was the solution created for that problem, and it's not >> bad. It can be a bit too verbose in a few cases, but it's almost >> always worth reading

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 07:27:30PM +0200, Christian Seiler wrote: > At least on my system (default configuration) apt-listchanges shows > only NEWS.Debian, not changelog.Debian. The only qualm I have with > it is that there appears to be no option to abort the install after > apt-listchanges

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

2016-05-11 18:27 Christian Seiler: On 05/11/2016 07:01 PM, Marc Haber wrote: On Wed, 11 May 2016 17:03:05 +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote: * Marc Haber [2016-05-11 10:47:52 +0200]: We could have a "show-release-notes" package containing a

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

On Wed, 11 May 2016 10:18:05 -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: >Marc Haber writes: >> apt-listchanges drowns the user in the change logs, most of which are >> irrevant. I think of a solution that will show text that has been vetted >> by the package

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

On 05/11/2016 07:01 PM, Marc Haber wrote: > On Wed, 11 May 2016 17:03:05 +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont > wrote: >> * Marc Haber [2016-05-11 10:47:52 +0200]: >> The third reason is the question of how much in detail the release notes should

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

On May 11, Russ Allbery wrote: > NEWS.Debian was the solution created for that problem, and it's not bad. > It can be a bit too verbose in a few cases, but it's almost always worth > reading carefully. It would help if more people opened bugs on packages with NEWS.Debian

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

Quoting Marc Haber (2016-05-11 19:01:03) > On Wed, 11 May 2016 17:03:05 +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont > wrote: > >* Marc Haber [2016-05-11 10:47:52 +0200]: > > > >> >The third reason is the question of how much in detail the release > >> >notes should

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

Marc Haber writes: > apt-listchanges drowns the user in the change logs, most of which are > irrevant. I think of a solution that will show text that has been vetted > by the package maintainer _and_ the release teams and that documents > possible breakage during

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

On Wed, 11 May 2016 17:03:05 +0200, Nicolas Dandrimont wrote: >* Marc Haber [2016-05-11 10:47:52 +0200]: > >> >The third reason is the question of how much in detail the release >> >notes should actually be. In a strange way in the past they were

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

* Marc Haber [2016-05-11 10:47:52 +0200]: > >The third reason is the question of how much in detail the release > >notes should actually be. In a strange way in the past they were too > >short. That made me reluctant to suggest entries for low-popcon > >packages as

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

On Wed, 11 May 2016 00:31:00 +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: >On 11.05.2016 00:17, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: >> On Saturday 07 May 2016 13:23:30 Ben Hutchings wrote: >>> Last year it was decided to increase the minimum CPU features for the >>> i386 architecture to

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

On Tue, 10 May 2016 08:13:40 +0200, Christoph Biedl wrote: > Why is feature X in the new Debian release broken? > Because you haven't read the release notes. >(Same for NEWS.Debian) Would you instead want the text part from release notes and/or NEWS.Debian pasted

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

On Mon, 9 May 2016 18:42:52 +, Niels Thykier wrote: >But with that >remark you make me feel like I have wasted my time and effort trying to >the write the Jessie release notes. You have not wasted your time. I do read the release notes, but I have to admit that I only do

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

On 11.05.2016 00:17, Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer wrote: On Saturday 07 May 2016 13:23:30 Ben Hutchings wrote: Last year it was decided to increase the minimum CPU features for the i386 architecture to 686-class in the stretch release cycle. This means dropping support for 586-class and

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

On Saturday 07 May 2016 13:23:30 Ben Hutchings wrote: > Last year it was decided to increase the minimum CPU features for the > i386 architecture to 686-class in the stretch release cycle. This > means dropping support for 586-class and hybrid 586/686 > processors[1].(Support for 486-class

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

Niels Thykier wrote... > I appreciate it was (hopefully) not your intention. But with that > remark you make me feel like I have wasted my time and effort trying to > the write the Jessie release notes. Niels, offending you was certainly the least of my interests. If I did, please accept my

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

On Mon, May 09, 2016 at 09:46:31PM +0200, Christian Seiler wrote: > tl;dr: The Jessie release notes were very helpful to me. Thanks! each release the release notes were quite very helpful, thanks indeed! and to add something: I agree that writing the text is the hardest part, whatever the tool

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

Adam D. Barratt: > On Mon, 2016-05-09 at 21:44 +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: >> On Mon, May 9, 2016, at 20:42, Niels Thykier wrote: >>> * We are too few to write the release-notes to keep track of all the >>>relevant parts for a release. >>>- HELP IS VERY WELCOME! >> >> Can we make the entry

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

On Mon, 2016-05-09 at 21:44 +0200, Ondřej Surý wrote: > On Mon, May 9, 2016, at 20:42, Niels Thykier wrote: > > * We are too few to write the release-notes to keep track of all the > >relevant parts for a release. > >- HELP IS VERY WELCOME! > > Can we make the entry barier to contribute

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

On 05/09/2016 08:42 PM, Niels Thykier wrote: > I appreciate it was (hopefully) not your intention. But with that > remark you make me feel like I have wasted my time and effort trying to > the write the Jessie release notes. I would like to say that I did very much appreciate the Jessie release

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

On Mon, May 9, 2016, at 20:42, Niels Thykier wrote: > * We are too few to write the release-notes to keep track of all the >relevant parts for a release. >- HELP IS VERY WELCOME! Can we make the entry barier to contribute text lower? I see several options as: 1. Use some (argh non-free)

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

Hi, Christoph Biedl: > No big surprise. Given the amount of unneeded information combined > with the experience several gotchas were missing ... I've stopped > reading them. Several other people probably too. > * I agree there is a lot of boilerplate text and I would be happy to restructure

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

Agustin Martin wrote... > On Sun, May 08, 2016 at 07:17:53PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > > On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 6:21 PM, Holger Levsen wrote: > > > > > running unstable is not for users who don't know how to deal with > > > breakage. dealing with breakage involves reading d-d-a. > > > > I was

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

On Mon, 2016-05-09 at 12:40 +0200, Hans wrote: > Hi Ben,  > > since 4 weeks I have the problem, that a build kali-live system, which > depends  > on debian, crashes at boot. A native installed kali works well. > > They claim, the problem shall be my cpu's, but the livefile is crashing on my  >

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

Hi Ben, since 4 weeks I have the problem, that a build kali-live system, which depends on debian, crashes at boot. A native installed kali works well. They claim, the problem shall be my cpu's, but the livefile is crashing on my AMD Turion 64 X2, as well on my older K8 cpu. IMO these cpu's

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

On Sun, May 08, 2016 at 07:17:53PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 6:21 PM, Holger Levsen wrote: > > > running unstable is not for users who don't know how to deal with > > breakage. dealing with breakage involves reading d-d-a. > > I was thinking to give users running affected

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

Holger Levsen wrote: > On Sun, May 08, 2016 at 10:44:29AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: >> d-d-a is mostly for developers, you might like to reach our users via >> the Debian publicity team: > running unstable is not for users who don't know how to deal with > breakage. dealing

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

On Sun, May 8, 2016 at 6:21 PM, Holger Levsen wrote: > running unstable is not for users who don't know how to deal with > breakage. dealing with breakage involves reading d-d-a. I was thinking to give users running affected hardware more warning than reading the release notes in the next stable

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

On Sun, May 08, 2016 at 10:44:29AM +0800, Paul Wise wrote: > d-d-a is mostly for developers, you might like to reach our users via > the Debian publicity team: running unstable is not for users who don't know how to deal with breakage. dealing with breakage involves reading d-d-a. -- cheers,

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

On Sat, May 7, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Ben Hutchings wrote: > Last year it was decided to increase the minimum CPU features for the > i386 architecture to 686-class in the stretch release cycle. d-d-a is mostly for developers, you might like to reach our users via the Debian publicity team:

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

On Sat, 2016-05-07 at 13:45 +0100, Steven Chamberlain wrote: > Hi, > > Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > > Last year it was decided to increase the minimum CPU features for the > > i386 architecture to 686-class in the stretch release cycle.  This > > means dropping support for 586-class and hybrid

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

Steven Chamberlain wrote: > I seem to remember last time this was discussed, GNU `as' avoids using a > particular 686-class instruction I found a reference for that: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2015/09/msg00617.html So it seems the "nearly 686" Geode LX/NX may still work after this

Re: Debian i386 architecture now requires a 686-class processor

Hi, Ben Hutchings wrote: > Last year it was decided to increase the minimum CPU features for the > i386 architecture to 686-class in the stretch release cycle.  This > means dropping support for 586-class and hybrid 586/686 > processors[1].(Support for 486-class processors was dropped, somewhat >