Shouldn't we just rename them 32bit and 64bit respectively? Is there
something I'm missing?
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/751018
Title:
i386 installer CDs are named improperly
To
Howdy,
Something like that would seem to be a good idea. But, it was
explained that the names come from the debian names an won't change.
I did discover that Debian no longer supports 386, with 486 being the
lowest chip they compile for. They document this better than Ubuntu.
Good day
On
Howdy,
OK, I'll take your advice. I am not trying to cause trouble. I just wanted
it to be clear. I know when Maverick came out, I was one of those who missed
the reference in the release notes and I messed up one of my servers and had to
rebuild it. The name i386 in the architecture
Howdy,
To Steve Langasek, the change took place in Maverick. I have a Via C3 based
thin client that I use as a samba server and to demonstrate Ubuntu. The
release notes for Maverick say With 10.10 we have also dropped support for
i586 and lower processors, as well as i686 processors without
Howdy,
I want to revise that a bit.
Intel/AMD/Via architecture note:
i386 refers to processors that have support for the Intel 32 bit
instructions. In order to take advantage of certain compiler optimizations, a
686 processor or higher with cmov support is needed.
amd64 refers to
Debian is almost certainly not going to change the architecture name,
and nor are we - it's unrealistic to expect that and so I should save
you time tilting against windmills. The architecture names are, by
design, fixed identifiers, and changing them is a heroically vast amount
of work for very
We won't be changing the image names - they match the dpkg architecture
name, which is fixed. I'm happy to consider improvements in wording of
the HTML descriptions of the images; feel free to make specific
suggestions there.
** Changed in: ubuntu-cdimage
Status: New = Won't Fix
--
You
Too late in the cycle to consider this for Natty, it does need to be
release noted though.
Have added it to Oneiric's list, we need to do this change over early in
the cycle.
** Also affects: ubuntu-meta (Ubuntu Natty)
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
** Also affects: ubuntu-meta
The i386 in the image name is the architecture name. Is it better to
have different names for the CDs and the architecture in the archive,
than to have everything named consistently but leave the confusion
regarding the supported CPU?
Isn't this best left as-is, and just make sure we use better
Just in case that ever actually gets touched (I'm not suggesting that we
should), can we rename amd64 to x86-64 then as well? It's not less
confusing than i386, given that it runs perfectly fine on most non-AMD
Intel machines these days.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a
** Changed in: ubuntu-meta (Ubuntu)
Status: New = Invalid
** Changed in: ubuntu-meta (Ubuntu Oneiric)
Status: New = Invalid
** Changed in: ubuntu-cdimage
Assignee: (unassigned) = Canonical Foundations Team
(canonical-foundations)
--
You received this bug notification
** Package changed: ubuntu = ubuntu-meta (Ubuntu)
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/751018
Title:
i386 installer CDs are named improperly
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
12 matches
Mail list logo
