Re: Dropping 686 non-pae kernel
On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 03:57:56AM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 11:34 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 11:23 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote:
> [...]
> > > There are several possibilities to do this:
> > > * Change name of meta-package:
> > > - Breaks nothing
> > > - Needs manual intervention by anyone using it
> > > * Don't change the name:
> > > - Breaks some systems
> > > - No manual intervention by the rest
> I'm wavering on this. I don't like the idea of simply renaming
> '686-bigmem' to '686', given there are a fair number of 686-class
> systems without PAE, and I don't think users with a Pentium M are going
> to expect that '486' is the right choice.
Please read again what I wrote.
> The distinctions between these two flavours will be:
> 1. One processor (min 486) with 386 page tables (currently '486')
> 2. One or more processors with PAE page tables (currently '686-bigmem')
Will not hold forever and you need to integrate the other architectures
into it.
> How about naming them 'up' and 'smp-pae'? It'll be a pain to transition
> the metapackages, but then we should never have to go through this again
> when raising the minimum processor requirement.
No, this will not help. See above.
Bastian
--
There are certain things men must do to remain men.
-- Kirk, "The Ultimate Computer", stardate 4929.4
Reply to: