RE: Dropping 386 support
calling stuff i386 when it will not run natively on a 386 seems like asking
for confustion to me
why and when was this instruction emulation needed in the first place (that
is why and when was the userland changed to need it)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adeodato Simó [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: 03 October 2004 23:19
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com;
> Subject: Re: Dropping 386 support
> * Joey Hess [Sun, 03 Oct 2004 12:54:21 -0400]:
> > Andres Salomon wrote:
> > > Given d-i's memory requirements, and the fact that you'd be
> > > to find a (desktop) 386 system with more than 16 megs of
> memory, I don't
> > > consider debian 3.1 to be a viable candidate for installing
> onto a 386.
> > > Also, note that if we do drop 386 support, I will rename
> > > kernel-image-2.6.8-386 to kernel-image-2.6.8-486, and update
> > > optimizations accordingly.
> > I have no opinion on 386 support, but it's too late to go changing
> > kernel package names for sarge. d-i relies on the current names, and
> > this sort of transition will likely set us back days or weeks on our
> > release schedule.
> would it be a problem to actually update optimizations as Andres
> proposes, but without changing packages? that is, *if* finally sarge
> ships without plain i386 support and that is clearly noted in the
> release notes.
> Adeodato Simó
> EM: asp16 [ykwim] alu.ua.es | PK: DA6AE621
> Listening to: Aphex Twin - Xtal
> The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
> persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
> progress depends on the unreasonable man.
> -- George Bernard Shaw
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-boot-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact