[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#198158: architecture i386 isn't i386 anymore

On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 09:51:07AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
> Package: general
> Severity: serious
> Tags: sarge, sid
> [please don't reassign to any gcc/libstdc++ package]
> Nathanel's summary:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200304/msg02112.html
> A list of proposals what to do:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200305/msg00360.html
> Some questions on this topic:
> http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200304/msg01895.html
> The solution I would favour would be:
> - drop the i386 support
> - keep the i386 architecture name
> - let dpkg-architecture output the new configuration string
>   (i.e. i486-linux)
> - if anybody wants to start the mini-i386 architecture, we have to
>   find an architecture name for it.
> changing the dpkg-architecture's ARCH string to i.e. i486 would break
> a lot of build scripts ...

So, why not fix this buginess of the build script withs going for a new
i486 or i686 or whatever arch, and keeping the old i386 around for now.
A new autobuilder would be needed, and today, diskspace is not really an
unsolvable problem for the archive, which would grow by less than 10%
anyway. Later we can either drop i386 entirely, or make a mini-i386 out
of it.

Other solutions might be to keep i386 around for safety, and implement
beside it a newer subarch-aware ix86 archive or something such, and once
that does work satisfactoryly move i386 to mini-i386.

Come on, we already support 11 or so arches officially, and a bunch of
other unofficially, surelly this would not be so expensive for us.


Sven Luther

Reply to: