Bug#198158: architecture i386 isn't i386 anymore

[Stephen Stafford <ssta@pol.ac.uk>]

On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 03:26:08PM +0200, Giacomo A. Catenazzi wrote:
> 
> Stephen Stafford wrote:
> 
> >While I support the removal of 386 support, I absolutely and strenuously
> >object to going to 686.  686 isn't all that old at all (1997 IIRC), and I
> >use a nunber of 4/586 machines still (I have one 486 which I use for
> >embedded development and 3 P100 boxen which are used for various things 
> >like
> >CVS server, gateway/firewall, testing various things).
> >
> >Judging from my random contacts with users, it's a fairly usual setup to 
> >see
> >a network of higher (500Mhz+) end hardware machines which sit on a LAN in
> >1918space and are masqueraded to the outside internet by a firewall/gateway
> >running Debian on a 486 or low end pentium.  I believe this to be a fairly
> >significant proportion of our userbase and I'd oppose any move to
> >marginalise them like this.
> 
> You will upgrade these router to sarge o newer distributions?
> i think removal of some 486sx will have some advantages (removal of
> software floating point support in kernels/disks..

I fail to see the gain in this.  If you don't need software floating point,
then it isn't used AFAIK.

Although, yes...in principle, I'm happy enough to drop 486sx support if it's
shown to have any real benefits.  I believe we should retain 486dx support
though.

Cheers,

Stephen