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 terms to
identify them in the user-facing documentation?
> These won't install onto i386 machines since the release of Maverick
That's not true at all - they haven't installed onto i386 machines since
*LONG* before maverick (I could be wrong, but I don't think Ubuntu was
ever installable on a true i386 machine). But we don't relabel the
archive when the baseline moves.
** Also affects: ubuntu-cdimage
Importance: Undecided
Status: New
--
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
[email protected]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
