On Thu, Jun 08, 2023 at 07:14:17PM +0200, Helmut Grohne wrote: > I concur. Given Simon's analysis and the replies even when combined with > earlier messages, I now see significantly more voices for the opinion: > > i386 primarily exists for running legacy binaries and binary > compatibility with legacy executables is more important than correct > representation of time beyond 2038. I agree. (And personally I don't care about i386 at all. I'm happy if we support i386 usecases if this seems reasonable for all involved.) > I'm inclined to call this consensus now [...] I'm inclined to call this consensus of the few people who participated (activly or passivly) in this short & short-lived thread, but I'm not sure we can call this project wide consensus *yet*. RFC on d-d-a? That's at least less heavy than a GR and yet way more visible than just a thread on d-d. -- cheers, Holger ⢀⣴⠾⠻⢶⣦⠀ ⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ holger@(debian|reproducible-builds|layer-acht).org ⢿⡄⠘⠷⠚⠋⠀ OpenPGP: B8BF54137B09D35CF026FE9D 091AB856069AAA1C ⠈⠳⣄ Just because other people are also responsible, does not mean you are not responsible.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature