Re: amd64 as default architecture
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: 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 one can install apt/dpkg:amd64 and then migrate to a 64bit userspace. Won't work in wheezy, apt does not support crossgradesน. Why? What breaks? You give the answer yourself: Testing (see below) shows that there is one big issue, namely that crossgrading wants to remove the package before installing the new one. This means you have to crossgrade at least the essential packages without apt's help. While this should not pose insurmountable difficulties, it is probably not something to be recommended to the average user. Interestingly enough apt has no problem with removing an essential package from a foreign architecture. In this case though it breaks because the diversion handling in bash/dash is broken for crossgrades: Removing dash ... Removing 'diversion of /bin/sh to /bin/sh.distrib by dash' dpkg-divert: error: rename involves overwriting `/bin/sh' with different file `/bin/sh.distrib', not allowed dpkg: error processing dash (--remove): subprocess installed pre-removal script returned error exit status 2 This may be a bug in dash. Few people remove essential packages, so removing dash has probably not been tested so well. Overall the one MAJOR showstopped seems to be that apt/dpkg can't crossgrade a package without removing it. Only apt cannot do that, dpkg has no problem with it. But if you use dpkg alone you may be left with lots of unfulfilled dependencies after the crossgrade, see #20471¹. Cheers, Sven ¹ http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=20471 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87fwadin1e@turtle.gmx.de
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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: 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 one can install apt/dpkg:amd64 and then migrate to a 64bit userspace. Won't work in wheezy, apt does not support crossgradesà¸. Why? What breaks? Any bugs filed yet? I'm sure you are right that it currently doesn't work out of the box. I don't agree with killing this for wheezy without having some idea of how much breakage is involed though. I've seen reports from other people that have done crossgrades in the past with some handholding so it isn't impossible. Testing (see below) shows that there is one big issue, namely that crossgrading wants to remove the package before installing the new one. Everything else seems to be minor and package specific issues (like dash trying to overwrite its diversion). But testing on a minimal chroot is hardly conclusive so if you know other issues then feel free to speak up. There is no real reason to require apt to do the heavy lifting here. It would be nice, but it is a one-time action, so a specialized tool wouldn't hurt muscle memory too much. Install essentials and apt and you should be good to go to proceed as usual, just with a different architecture⦠I disagree that this is a one-time action, people might want to cross-grade specific packages back and forth, not just the entire installation. Also unsafe cross-grade does not only affect the Essential set, it also affects anything involved in the boot process, if for whatever reason the system crashes and apt would have removed such package the system would be rendered unbootable. Crossgrading a single package should already work. That is just normal multiarch stuff. As long as the dependencies are resolved, which multiarch does, there should be no problem. All assuming the package doesn't have architecture specific data that will break (like git-svn). Except with the essential set you don't always have dependencies. But I'm not concerned there. You always have depends on libraries through the shlibs/symbols files and everything else is (or should be) Multi-Arch: foreign and work in any arch. Even most essentials are easy to crossgrade, the only really difficult one is dpkg and it's dependencies as you have to take care of not breaking it while it crossgrades itself. I guess I don't see the additional complexity in the dpkg specific case, it just needs the shared libraries to be installed which should be co-installable anyway, and the rest being M-A:foreign. The complexity in dpkg (and apt) is the metadata. When crossgrading apt/dpkg the notion of native and foreign architecture switches and that impacts /var/lib/dpkg/info/ and the handling of Arch:all packages. So lets test this: cdebootstrap -v sid sid http://ftp.debian.org/ # dpkg --add-architecture i386 # apt-get update # apt-get install apt:i386 dpkg:i386 Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done Some packages could not be installed. This may mean that you have requested an impossible situation or if you are using the unstable distribution that some required packages have not yet been created or been moved out of Incoming. The following information may help to resolve the situation: The following packages have unmet dependencies: apt:i386 : Depends: debian-archive-keyring:i386 but it is not installable E: Unable to correct problems, you have held broken packages. Doh, debian-archive-keyring isn't Multi-Arch: foreign (yet). Lets fix that and try again: # apt-get install apt:i386 dpkg:i386 Reading package lists... Done Building dependency tree... Done The following extra packages will be installed: gcc-4.7-base:i386 libapt-pkg4.12:i386 libbz2-1.0:i386 libc6:i386 libc6-i686:i386 libgcc1:i386 libselinux1:i386 libstdc++6:i386 zlib1g:i386 Suggested packages: aptitude:i386 synaptic:i386 wajig:i386 dpkg-dev:i386 apt-doc:i386 python-apt:i386 glibc-doc:i386 locales:i386 The following packages will be REMOVED: apt dpkg The following NEW packages will be installed: apt:i386 dpkg:i386 gcc-4.7-base:i386 libapt-pkg4.12:i386 libbz2-1.0:i386 libc6:i386 libc6-i686:i386 libgcc1:i386 libselinux1:i386 libstdc++6:i386 zlib1g:i386 WARNING: The following essential packages will be removed. This should NOT be done unless you know exactly what you are doing! apt dpkg 0 upgraded, 11 newly installed, 2 to remove and 0 not upgraded. Need to get 10.3 MB of archives. After this operation, 16.1 MB of additional disk space will be used. You are about to do something potentially harmful. To continue type in the phrase 'Yes, do as I
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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. Though we might consider reducing even that to a 'partial architecture' that has only libraries (similar to ia32-libs today, only cleaner). Ben. Which basically means i386 is droped but we still support 32bit stuff for amd64. Isn't there still a large demand for i386 in the industry/embedded sector? MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87396fnyhz.fsf@frosties.localnet
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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 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 only libraries (similar to ia32-libs today, only cleaner). Ben. Which basically means i386 is droped but we still support 32bit stuff for amd64. Isn't there still a large demand for i386 in the industry/embedded sector? I don't know; nor whether they use Debian much. But those are two sectors not well known for keeping their software updated, i.e. they might not care about a lack of future releases.. I'm not suggesting there's any need to decide a timescale for this, anyway. I'm just proposing that we plan to have that transitional stage for some time before actually removing i386. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings The obvious mathematical breakthrough [to break modern encryption] would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers. - Bill Gates signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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: and anything that uses libx86 won't work either (#492470). ... The lrmi backend uses vm86 mode which is not supported under an x86_64 kernel. So the x86emu backend should be built too if there are any 64-bit systems that need libx86 - and maybe for other reasons as well. That's not a big deal, though, surely? Which backend to use is a compile time option, so this would be switching to always use the x86emu backend. Not a big issue if we're going to drop 32 bit kernels entirely, a performance impact on those machines if we're not. When is vm86 mode ever a fast path? FWIW X used to have a way to build both vm86 and x86emu backends, and fall back to x86emu if it got -ENOSYS. Now it just uses x86emu. Cheers, Julien -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120523091244.ga22...@coloquinte.cristau.org
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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 secondary architecture if this is selected. We have still some software that doesn't work with 64-bit kernel, and (worse!) some maintainers claiming it's not a bug. Are you thinking of build systems using 'uname -m' to detect the target architecture? It is possible to work around those using setarch. But how do they build on sparc or s390 now? We're building with linux32 on those architectures. If some chroot (or buildd/arch) is missing the correct setup, please drop us a mail. Kind regards Philipp Kern, with a wb-team hat signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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 sparc64 soon!) For sparc64, I heard the sparc kernel has been sparc64-only since past etch, already. (Too bad, otherwise I could have run Debian on one of my six SPARCstations at home.) bye, //mirabilos -- Hi, does anyone sell openbsd stickers by themselves and not packaged with other products? No, the only way I've seen them sold is for $40 with a free OpenBSD CD. -- Haroon Khalid and Steve Shockley in gmane.os.openbsd.misc -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pine.bsm.4.64l.1205221323260.23...@herc.mirbsd.org
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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 machines such as Soekris (486-compatible), Pentium-M, etc. For ever and ever and ever? have ppc64 and sparc64 soon!) For sparc64, I heard the sparc kernel has been sparc64-only since past etch, already. (Too bad, otherwise I could have run Debian on one of my six SPARCstations at home.) Right, sparc32 kernel builds were more-or-less broken for a long time. I think sparc32 is in better shape now but it seems pointless to bring them back. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking. - Albert Camus -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120522150129.gp4...@decadent.org.uk
Re: amd64 as default architecture
* 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!) some maintainers claiming it's not a bug. -- Jakub Wilk -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120522172721.ga8...@jwilk.net
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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 software that doesn't work with 64-bit kernel, and (worse!) some maintainers claiming it's not a bug. Are you thinking of build systems using 'uname -m' to detect the target architecture? It is possible to work around those using setarch. But how do they build on sparc or s390 now? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking. - Albert Camus -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120522180353.gq4...@decadent.org.uk
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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 architecture if this is selected. We have still some software that doesn't work with 64-bit kernel, and (worse!) some maintainers claiming it's not a bug. Are you thinking of build systems using 'uname -m' to detect the target architecture? I don't think so, although those have been quite annoying for me. The most prominent example is probably virtualbox (#456391), and anything that uses libx86 won't work either (#492470). Cheers, Sven -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87mx50krax@turtle.gmx.de
Re: amd64 as default architecture
On 22/05/12 19:24, Sven Joachim wrote: On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 07:27:21PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote: We have still some software that doesn't work with 64-bit kernel, and (worse!) some maintainers claiming it's not a bug. The most prominent example is probably virtualbox (#456391) That bug 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. 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, and I don't see any indication that amd64 is involved at all. S -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fbbddb9.6030...@debian.org
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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, Oh, indeed. and I don't see any indication that amd64 is involved at all. The lrmi backend uses vm86 mode which is not supported under an x86_64 kernel. Cheers, Sven -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87fwaskosi@turtle.gmx.de
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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 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 one can install apt/dpkg:amd64 and then migrate to a 64bit userspace. Won't work in wheezy, apt does not support crossgradesน. There is no real reason to require apt to do the heavy lifting here. It would be nice, but it is a one-time action, so a specialized tool wouldn't hurt muscle memory too much. Install essentials and apt and you should be good to go to proceed as usual, just with a different architecture… I disagree that this is a one-time action, people might want to cross-grade specific packages back and forth, not just the entire installation. Also unsafe cross-grade does not only affect the Essential set, it also affects anything involved in the boot process, if for whatever reason the system crashes and apt would have removed such package the system would be rendered unbootable. Even most essentials are easy to crossgrade, the only really difficult one is dpkg and it's dependencies as you have to take care of not breaking it while it crossgrades itself. I guess I don't see the additional complexity in the dpkg specific case, it just needs the shared libraries to be installed which should be co-installable anyway, and the rest being M-A:foreign. regards, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120522194514.gc22...@gaara.hadrons.org
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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 Information, he's running libx86/i386 on one of the i386 kernel flavours, Oh, indeed. and I don't see any indication that amd64 is involved at all. The lrmi backend uses vm86 mode which is not supported under an x86_64 kernel. So the x86emu backend should be built too if there are any 64-bit systems that need libx86 - and maybe for other reasons as well. That's not a big deal, though, surely? By the way, lack of VM86 mode under Long Mode is a restriction of the AMD64 architecture definition and not a kernel limitation. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking. - Albert Camus -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120522195117.gs4...@decadent.org.uk
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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. Right, sparc32 kernel builds were more-or-less broken for a long time. Ah, okay. I think sparc32 is in better shape now but it seems pointless to bring them back. Probably yes; it’s been broken on Linux for so long I believe every remaining user switched to MirBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD in the meantime or picked up something like SunOS 4 from some archive. And those are, unlike i386, no longer built any more either. (Still usable though.) bye, //mirabilos -- 08:05⎜XTaran:#grml mika: Does grml have an tool to read Apple ⎜System Log (asl) files? :) 08:08⎜ft:#grml yeah. /bin/rm. ;) 08:09⎜mrud:#grml hexdump -C 08:31⎜XTaran:#grml ft, mrud: *g* -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/pine.bsm.4.64l.1205222006520.6...@herc.mirbsd.org
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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 debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120522212839.GC22383@debian
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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 backend uses vm86 mode which is not supported under an x86_64 kernel. So the x86emu backend should be built too if there are any 64-bit systems that need libx86 - and maybe for other reasons as well. That's not a big deal, though, surely? Which backend to use is a compile time option, so this would be switching to always use the x86emu backend. Not a big issue if we're going to drop 32 bit kernels entirely, a performance impact on those machines if we're not. J. -- Web [ Keyboard: Used for entering errors into a system. ] site: http:// [ ] Made by www.earth.li/~noodles/ [ ] HuggieTag 0.0.24 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120522213434.gp20...@earth.li
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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 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? Obviously, if there are no skilled volunteers to maintain the current i386 kernel, there is no way to support it. But in case the user base is too large compared to the developer base, perhaps users can self-organise and gather donations to pay for the work ? I would definitely prefer to spend the price of a new hardware as ~5 years of donations instead of replacing it as long as it is performant enough for its task (I bought mine a few months ago). What do you think would be the cost to keep a good-shaped i386 kernel package in wheezy+2 ? Have a nice day, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120522231603.ga28...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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 currently have to guess how many people we are cutting off when minimum support is moved forward. There is smolt for that, but folks haven't packaged it for Debian yet: https://fedorahosted.org/smolt/ http://bugs.debian.org/435058 kmuto had/has a webpage about hardware used on machines running Debian. I cannot recall its address at the moment. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120521055255.ga5...@debian.org
Re: amd64 as default architecture
On 21/05/2012 08:45, Charles Plessy wrote: 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 support 64-bit. Right, though I think these are going into phones now, not netbooks. Fit-PC sells an excellent fanless mini-PC with an Atom Z510 that does not support 64-bit instructions. It consumes 8 W according to the manufacturer, which is less than some Arm-based plug computers. I am the happy owner of one of them and would be quite sad to have to replace it in two years in order to keep on using Debian Stable on my personal server. 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 architecture. -- Kind regards, Loong Jin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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 architecture. Both. -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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 the first target freeze date are a bad idea and should be done right after a release so that the change get maximum exposure before it is considered for a stable release? Greetings Marc -- -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! - Marc Haber |Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header Mannheim, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom | http://www.zugschlus.de/ Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG Rightful Heir | Fon: *49 621 72739834 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1sw0ev-0006cu...@swivel.zugschlus.de
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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 perfectly
compatible with i386 userland, but split 32/64-bit installations are
increasingly used and I think most bugs have been flushed out by now.
Thanks to multi-arch you can now add amd64 as a secondary architecture
and install the kernel package from amd64, and if your system is running
such a kernel then it can also support userland packages from amd64.
So in wheezy I would like to see:
1. Default architecture (top of the list for installation media/manual)
being amd64 ('64-bit PC').
Default image could be multiple archs. We had i386/amd64/ppc DVD images
in the past and that seems like the best default. It simply works (near
enough) everywhere. Doesn't work for all image types but where it does ...
2. Users of the amd64 kernel flavour on i386 encouraged to add amd64 as
a secondary architecture (debconf note?).
2b. Have D-I ask wether to enable multiarch on amd64 on i386 if it
installed the amd64 kernel image but also i386 on amd64.
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 one can install apt/dpkg:amd64 and
then migrate to a 64bit userspace.
Then in wheezy+1:
3. amd64 kernel flavour for i386 dropped.
4. Kernel and common libraries for amd64 included in i386 installation
media; kernel included on low-number disc.
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.
D-I (libdebian-installer) must be multiarch aware for that then.
Otherwise it won't see the amd64 kernel in the first place.
Eventually (wheezy+2? +3?) we would stop building a kernel package for
i386.
As in drop the i386 arch?
Does anyone see a problem with the above, in particular points 1 and 2?
No problem as such, just more ideas.
(Also, much of the above applies to s390x vs s390. And please let's
have ppc64 and sparc64 soon!)
Ben.
MfG
Goswin
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87mx53i4mv.fsf@frosties.localnet
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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 bits capable machine. Yes, it's a bit stupid, but some users still don't understand that amd64 arch also works on Intel! A very simple debconf menu in the installer, explaining what's going on, would solve the issue. Just my 2 cents, Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fb8d109.4080...@goirand.fr
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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 one can install apt/dpkg:amd64 and then migrate to a 64bit userspace. Won't work in wheezy, apt does not support crossgrades¹. Making it a release goal for wheezy+1 seems to be a good idea, but it's a long way to get there. Cheers, Sven ¹ Replacing foo:i386 with foo:amd64 is done by removing foo:i386 and then installing foo:amd64, which does not work for Essential packages. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87aa133y6m@turtle.gmx.de
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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 wether one can cross-grade from i386 to amd64 using multiarch. Wether one can install apt/dpkg:amd64 and then migrate to a 64bit userspace. Won't work in wheezy, apt does not support crossgradesน. There is no real reason to require apt to do the heavy lifting here. It would be nice, but it is a one-time action, so a specialized tool wouldn't hurt muscle memory too much. Install essentials and apt and you should be good to go to proceed as usual, just with a different architecture… Even most essentials are easy to crossgrade, the only really difficult one is dpkg and it's dependencies as you have to take care of not breaking it while it crossgrades itself. (I think it is unlikely that apt will get support for that soon, if at all, given that it quiet easily becomes a quiet complicated situation in general in a codearea which isn't short on complexity already. And that just for the once in a blue moon encounter of a crossgrade?) Best regards David Kalnischkies -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/CAAZ6_fD1OraGQoEWuWe-1jxtcz+tq0d2x4v7vspfd8ba...@mail.gmail.com
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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, identical
in all but the package metadata. This has not always been perfectly
compatible with i386 userland, but split 32/64-bit installations are
increasingly used and I think most bugs have been flushed out by now.
Thanks to multi-arch you can now add amd64 as a secondary architecture
and install the kernel package from amd64, and if your system is running
such a kernel then it can also support userland packages from amd64.
So in wheezy I would like to see:
1. Default architecture (top of the list for installation media/manual)
being amd64 ('64-bit PC').
Default image could be multiple archs. We had i386/amd64/ppc DVD images
in the past and that seems like the best default. It simply works (near
enough) everywhere. Doesn't work for all image types but where it does ...
The default image *is* i386/amd64 netinst.
2. Users of the amd64 kernel flavour on i386 encouraged to add amd64 as
a secondary architecture (debconf note?).
2b. Have D-I ask wether to enable multiarch on amd64 on i386 if it
installed the amd64 kernel image but also i386 on amd64.
Would be good, but might not be possible in time for wheezy.
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 one can install apt/dpkg:amd64 and
then migrate to a 64bit userspace.
I don't believe this is easily doable yet. (It was possible, with
difficulty, even before multi-arch.)
Then in wheezy+1:
3. amd64 kernel flavour for i386 dropped.
4. Kernel and common libraries for amd64 included in i386 installation
media; kernel included on low-number disc.
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.
D-I (libdebian-installer) must be multiarch aware for that then.
Otherwise it won't see the amd64 kernel in the first place.
Yes.
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 only libraries (similar to
ia32-libs today, only cleaner).
Ben.
Does anyone see a problem with the above, in particular points 1 and 2?
No problem as such, just more ideas.
(Also, much of the above applies to s390x vs s390. And please let's
have ppc64 and sparc64 soon!)
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
All extremists should be taken out and shot.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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: Digital signature
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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 believe in x32? What do you mean, 'believe'? I'm aware it may allow some applications to be somewhat more efficient than either i386 or amd64. I doubt it's worth adding to the Debian archive, but if we did then I imagine it would also be as a partial architecture. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings All extremists should be taken out and shot. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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 aware it may allow some applications to be somewhat more efficient than either i386 or amd64. I doubt it's worth adding to the Debian archive, but if we did then I imagine it would also be as a partial architecture. I cannot see any use case, except supporting proprietary software, where a i386 userland-only port would be more useful of a x32 port (which would be userland-only by definition). I think that we should be seriouly investigating the merits of a x32 port once we are done with multiarch. -- ciao, Marco signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: amd64 as default architecture
* 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 believe in x32? What do you mean, 'believe'? I'm aware it may allow some applications to be somewhat more efficient than either i386 or amd64. I doubt it's worth adding to the Debian archive, but if we did then I imagine it would also be as a partial architecture. I cannot see any use case, except supporting proprietary software, where a i386 userland-only port would be more useful of a x32 port (which would be userland-only by definition). Two issues: 1. Migration of existing systems is easier. 2. There are still machines bought new which aren't ready for x32. Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120520153906.gj2...@mails.so.argh.org
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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.
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 split 32/64-bit installations are
increasingly used and I think most bugs have been flushed out by now.
Thanks to multi-arch you can now add amd64 as a secondary architecture
and install the kernel package from amd64, and if your system is running
such a kernel then it can also support userland packages from amd64.
So in wheezy I would like to see:
1. Default architecture (top of the list for installation media/manual)
being amd64 ('64-bit PC').
Default image could be multiple archs. We had i386/amd64/ppc DVD images
in the past and that seems like the best default. It simply works (near
enough) everywhere. Doesn't work for all image types but where it does ...
The default image *is* i386/amd64 netinst.
2. Users of the amd64 kernel flavour on i386 encouraged to add amd64 as
a secondary architecture (debconf note?).
2b. Have D-I ask wether to enable multiarch on amd64 on i386 if it
installed the amd64 kernel image but also i386 on amd64.
Would be good, but might not be possible in time for wheezy.
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 one can install apt/dpkg:amd64 and
then migrate to a 64bit userspace.
I don't believe this is easily doable yet. (It was possible, with
difficulty, even before multi-arch.)
Then in wheezy+1:
3. amd64 kernel flavour for i386 dropped.
4. Kernel and common libraries for amd64 included in i386 installation
media; kernel included on low-number disc.
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.
D-I (libdebian-installer) must be multiarch aware for that then.
Otherwise it won't see the amd64 kernel in the first place.
Yes.
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 only libraries (similar to
ia32-libs today, only cleaner).
How would plain x86 systems be supposed to boot, then?
Mike
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120520162423.ga5...@glandium.org
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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 only libraries (similar to ia32-libs today, only cleaner). How would plain x86 systems be supposed to boot, then? Using wheezy+1 (+2?). -- WBR, wRAR signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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
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 split 32/64-bit installations are
increasingly used and I think most bugs have been flushed out by now.
Thanks to multi-arch you can now add amd64 as a secondary architecture
and install the kernel package from amd64, and if your system is running
such a kernel then it can also support userland packages from amd64.
So in wheezy I would like to see:
1. Default architecture (top of the list for installation media/manual)
being amd64 ('64-bit PC').
Default image could be multiple archs. We had i386/amd64/ppc DVD images
in the past and that seems like the best default. It simply works (near
enough) everywhere. Doesn't work for all image types but where it does ...
The default image *is* i386/amd64 netinst.
2. Users of the amd64 kernel flavour on i386 encouraged to add amd64 as
a secondary architecture (debconf note?).
2b. Have D-I ask wether to enable multiarch on amd64 on i386 if it
installed the amd64 kernel image but also i386 on amd64.
Would be good, but might not be possible in time for wheezy.
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 one can install apt/dpkg:amd64 and
then migrate to a 64bit userspace.
I don't believe this is easily doable yet. (It was possible, with
difficulty, even before multi-arch.)
Then in wheezy+1:
3. amd64 kernel flavour for i386 dropped.
4. Kernel and common libraries for amd64 included in i386 installation
media; kernel included on low-number disc.
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.
D-I (libdebian-installer) must be multiarch aware for that then.
Otherwise it won't see the amd64 kernel in the first place.
Yes.
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 only libraries (similar to
ia32-libs today, only cleaner).
How would plain x86 systems be supposed to boot, then?
If by 'plain x86' you mean PCs with 32-bit processors, we would no
longer support them - *eventually*.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
All extremists should be taken out and shot.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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 Ben is talking about 3-5 years into the future, if not more. -- Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87aa12eom9@windlord.stanford.edu
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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 happened back when amd64 was starting up, it might have looked useful. Now it's a joke and a waste of time. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK.st...@einval.com You can't barbecue lettuce! -- Ellie Crane -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1swbsa-0004ak...@mail.einval.com
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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 reducing even that to a 'partial architecture' that has only libraries (similar to ia32-libs today, only cleaner). 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 support 64-bit. If at some point 64-bit becomes a required feature on all new x86 processors, with a definite indication that no new 32-bit-only processors will ever show up, then a few years after that this change could become reasonable. The rest of your plan, namely migrating the 64-bit kernel to a multiarch package instead of an i386 package, seems appropriate as soon as testing shows that multiarch can smoothly handle it (which probably means after the wheezy release, for safety). And automatically enabling multiarch based on processor capabilities seems like a good plan as well; eventually, that'll start becoming necessary for manageability, once new partial architectures start showing up for more fine-grained processor features. - Josh Triplett -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120520210223.GA13123@leaf
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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? 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). 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 support 64-bit. Right, though I think these are going into phones now, not netbooks. If at some point 64-bit becomes a required feature on all new x86 processors, with a definite indication that no new 32-bit-only processors will ever show up, then a few years after that this change could become reasonable. [...] So about 2030 then? I don't believe we need to wait that long - for example, we dropped support for 386-class processors in 2004 even though Intel was still selling them (finally EOL'd in 9/2007, apparently). But certainly we should consider just how many systems might be affected by changes in minimum specs. (Should we consider gathering selected hardware specs in popcon?) Ben. -- Ben Hutchings You can't have everything. Where would you put it? signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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, 'believe'? I'm aware it may allow some applications to be somewhat more efficient than either i386 or amd64. I doubt it's worth adding to the Debian archive, but if we did then I imagine it would also be as a partial architecture. I cannot see any use case, except supporting proprietary software, where a i386 userland-only port would be more useful of a x32 port (which would be userland-only by definition). 1. Migration of existing systems is easier. 2. There are still machines bought new which aren't ready for x32. Any such machine would also need a 32-bit kernel, so doesn't seem to be what we're talking about here. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120521000754.ga4...@virgil.dodds.net
Re: amd64 as default architecture
+++ 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, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120521002501.gk11...@stoneboat.aleph1.co.uk
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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 support 64-bit. Right, though I think these are going into phones now, not netbooks. Fit-PC sells an excellent fanless mini-PC with an Atom Z510 that does not support 64-bit instructions. It consumes 8 W according to the manufacturer, which is less than some Arm-based plug computers. I am the happy owner of one of them and would be quite sad to have to replace it in two years in order to keep on using Debian Stable on my personal server. By the way, are there plans to drop the support of the i386 architecture with kFreeBSD as well ? Cheers, -- Charles Plessy Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120521004559.ga23...@falafel.plessy.net
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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 same sort of criteria, I suspect. Note that Ben is talking about 3-5 years into the future, if not more. Try 10 years, if not 15. We'll be able to support just i686 3 years from now, I suppose, but even that is not certain. -- One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond where the shadows lie. -- The Silicon Valley Tarot Henrique Holschuh -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20120521015921.ga3...@khazad-dum.debian.net
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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 is moved forward. There is smolt for that, but folks haven't packaged it for Debian yet: https://fedorahosted.org/smolt/ http://bugs.debian.org/435058 -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caktje6g0w71sc1cemnthf0qeehpezsbwp86a2+awcrfrink...@mail.gmail.com
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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 data. We're in the process of decomissioning smolt. Please take a look at the census project if you'd like to help out with the replacement for smolt. -miles -- Quack, n. A murderer without a license. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87likmhyxw@catnip.gol.com
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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 statistics script is no longer running and creating new data. We're in the process of decomissioning smolt. Please take a look at the census project if you'd like to help out with the replacement for smolt. Doesn't look like the replacement is useful yet: https://fedorahosted.org/census/log/ -- bye, pabs http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/caktje6e393tpwtjit13emgcry6o8uacc2hxc3whk0xoqoju...@mail.gmail.com
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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)
being amd64 ('64-bit PC').
2. Users of the amd64 kernel flavour on i386 encouraged to add amd64 as
a secondary architecture (debconf note?).
My biggest concern with this is the same that prevented Ubuntu from
switching to amd64 as a default for 12.04 - namely, that even though almost
all new hardware coming out would benefit from a 64-bit OS, there's a
sizeable fraction of users for whom a 64-bit CD would be nothing more than a
coaster.
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2012-April/035088.html
Now perhaps it's easier for Debian to switch this default than it is for
Ubuntu, since Debian's choice of default arch doesn't have quite the same
all or nothing impact on pressed CDs and the like. But IMHO it's better
for our users to choose a default that's safe, at the cost of some users not
getting the most out of their hardware if they use the default.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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. Default architecture (top of the list for installation media/manual)
being amd64 ('64-bit PC').
2. Users of the amd64 kernel flavour on i386 encouraged to add amd64 as
a secondary architecture (debconf note?).
My biggest concern with this is the same that prevented Ubuntu from
switching to amd64 as a default for 12.04 - namely, that even though almost
all new hardware coming out would benefit from a 64-bit OS, there's a
sizeable fraction of users for whom a 64-bit CD would be nothing more than a
coaster.
I certainly don't propose to have any pages where amd64 is the only
option. But where we have lists of multiple architectures, I would like
to see '64-bit PC' first.
Quite a few such lists sorted alphabetically by Debian architecture
name, which means that 'amd64' comes first. However, 'amd64' confuses
many people, and sorting by descriptive name puts '32-bit PC' first.
https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-devel/2012-April/035088.html
Now perhaps it's easier for Debian to switch this default than it is for
Ubuntu, since Debian's choice of default arch doesn't have quite the same
all or nothing impact on pressed CDs and the like. But IMHO it's better
for our users to choose a default that's safe, at the cost of some users not
getting the most out of their hardware if they use the default.
Actually, the default Debian installation medium - in so far as it's
linked from the front of www.debian.org - is an amd64/i386 netinst
image, which encourages use of amd64 while still being 'safe'.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
All extremists should be taken out and shot.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: amd64 as default architecture
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
