On 2012-06-01 11:54 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Guillem Jover guil...@debian.org writes:
On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 14:03:35 +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Sven Joachim svenj...@gmx.de wrote:
On 2012-05-20 11:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Guillem Jover guil...@debian.org writes:
On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 14:03:35 +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Sven Joachim svenj...@gmx.de wrote:
On 2012-05-20 11:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Slightly OT but I wanted to mention it for its similarity:
Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk writes:
On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 11:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk 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.
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 11:59 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk writes:
On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 11:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk writes:
Eventually (wheezy+2? +3?) we would stop building a kernel package for
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 14:34:34 -0700, Jonathan McDowell wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 08:51:17PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 09:18:21PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
On 2012-05-22 20:40 +0200, Simon McVittie wrote:
On 22/05/12 19:24, Sven Joachim wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 07:03:53PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 07:27:21PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
* Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk, 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
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.
have ppc64 and
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 runnable on at least
* Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk, 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!)
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 07:27:21PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
* Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk, 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
On 2012-05-22 20:03 +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 07:27:21PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
* Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk, 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
seems to be that the userland and kernel parts of virtualbox
must have the same width to work correctly.
In a multiarch world, that at least has a workaround: if your kernel is
amd64 but your default architecture is i386, replace virtualbox/i386
with virtualbox/amd64 and it should be happy again
On 2012-05-22 20:40 +0200, Simon McVittie wrote:
On 22/05/12 19:24, Sven Joachim wrote:
and anything that uses libx86 won't work either (#492470).
Is this the right bug? According to the reporter's reportbug System
Information, he's running libx86/i386 on one of the i386 kernel
flavours,
On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 14:03:35 +0200, David Kalnischkies wrote:
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Sven Joachim svenj...@gmx.de wrote:
On 2012-05-20 11:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Slightly OT but I wanted to mention it for its similarity:
One thing that should be tested and
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 09:18:21PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
On 2012-05-22 20:40 +0200, Simon McVittie wrote:
On 22/05/12 19:24, Sven Joachim wrote:
and anything that uses libx86 won't work either (#492470).
Is this the right bug? According to the reporter's reportbug System
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 let’s talk again.
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 08:08:29PM +, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Hm, 2035 or thereabounds sounds good. ;-) Then let’s talk again.
Are you volunteering to maintain the i386 architecture until 2035, or
volunteering Ben to do it? ☺
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 08:51:17PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 09:18:21PM +0200, Sven Joachim wrote:
On 2012-05-22 20:40 +0200, Simon McVittie wrote:
On 22/05/12 19:24, Sven Joachim wrote:
and anything that uses libx86 won't work either (#492470).
...
The lrmi
Le Tue, May 22, 2012 at 04:01:29PM +0100, Ben Hutchings a écrit :
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
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 01:11:21PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Wookey wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 12:30:11AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
(Should we consider gathering selected hardware specs in popcon?)
Yes please. This would really help arm people too. We
thought we were discussing amd64 being the default architecture for new
installations, rather than the removal of the i386 architecture.
--
Kind regards,
Loong Jin
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 02:19:09PM +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
By the way, are there plans to drop the support of the i386 architecture
with
kFreeBSD as well ?
I thought we were discussing amd64 being the default architecture for new
installations, rather than the removal of the i386
On Sun, 20 May 2012 06:11:16 +0200, m...@linux.it (Marco d'Itri) wrote:
On May 20, Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk 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
Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk 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
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
On 2012-05-20 11:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Slightly OT but I wanted to mention it for its similarity:
One thing that should be tested and then documented prominently as yay
or nay in the wheezy upgrade notes is wether one can cross-grade from
i386 to amd64 using multiarch. Wether
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 1:10 PM, Sven Joachim svenj...@gmx.de wrote:
On 2012-05-20 11:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Slightly OT but I wanted to mention it for its similarity:
One thing that should be tested and then documented prominently as yay
or nay in the wheezy upgrade notes is
On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 11:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk 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,
On May 20, Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk 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:
On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 16:41 +0200, Marco d'Itri wrote:
On May 20, Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk 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
On May 20, Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk 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
* Marco d'Itri (m...@linux.it) [120520 17:31]:
On May 20, Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk 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
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 b...@decadent.org.uk writes:
Most new PCs have an Intel or AMD 64-bit processor, and
popcon.debian.org shows amd64 numbers almost matching i386.
On Sun, May 20, 2012 at 06:24:23PM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote:
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 reducing even
that to a 'partial architecture' that has
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 b...@decadent.org.uk writes:
Most new PCs have an Intel or AMD 64-bit processor, and
Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk writes:
If by 'plain x86' you mean PCs with 32-bit processors, we would no
longer support them - *eventually*.
Excactly like how we no longer support pure i386 systems (as opposed to
i486 or later). And with the same sort of criteria, I suspect. Note that
Marco wrote:
On May 20, Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk 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?
Puke. Please, no. If it had
Ben Hutchings wrote:
On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 11:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk 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
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 b...@decadent.org.uk writes:
Eventually (wheezy+2? +3?) we would stop building a kernel package
for i386.
As in drop the i386 arch?
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?
What do you mean,
+++ Ben Hutchings [2012-05-21 00:30 +0100]:
(Should we consider gathering selected hardware specs in popcon?)
Yes please. This would really help arm people too. We currently have
to guess how many people we are cutting off when minimum support is
moved forward.
Wookey
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE,
Le Mon, May 21, 2012 at 12:30:11AM +0100, Ben Hutchings a écrit :
On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 14:02 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote:
I'd love to see that happen someday, but at the moment, new x86 systems
still get sold that don't support 64-bit. Notably, many low-power Atom
processors still don't
On Sun, 20 May 2012, Russ Allbery wrote:
Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk writes:
If by 'plain x86' you mean PCs with 32-bit processors, we would no
longer support them - *eventually*.
Excactly like how we no longer support pure i386 systems (as opposed to
i486 or later). And with the
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Wookey wrote:
+++ Ben Hutchings [2012-05-21 00:30 +0100]:
(Should we consider gathering selected hardware specs in popcon?)
Yes please. This would really help arm people too. We currently have
to guess how many people we are cutting off when minimum support
Paul Wise p...@debian.org writes:
There is smolt for that, but folks haven't packaged it for Debian yet:
https://fedorahosted.org/smolt/
http://bugs.debian.org/435058
Hmm... from http://smolts.org/static/stats/stats.html:
The statistics script is no longer running and creating new
On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 1:42 PM, Miles Bader wrote:
Paul Wise p...@debian.org writes:
There is smolt for that, but folks haven't packaged it for Debian yet:
https://fedorahosted.org/smolt/
http://bugs.debian.org/435058
Hmm... from http://smolts.org/static/stats/stats.html:
The
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
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/manual)
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:
1.
On May 20, Ben Hutchings b...@decadent.org.uk 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
50 matches
Mail list logo
