Re: real-i386 (was Re: i386 requalification for etch)
Bastian Venthur wrote:
> Nick Jacobs wrote:
>
>
>>In-Reply-To=<200510091703.28199.neroden@twcny.rr.com>
>>
>>You mean, it's seriously been proposed that a
>>significant amount of work should be done to restore
>>support for a processor that has not been manufactured
>>for 10 years? While slightly degrading performance for
>>the 99.99999% of x86 users who have Pentium/Athlon/or
>>better?
>
>
> Maybe renaming Debians "i386" into something more accurate like "x86" or
> even "IA32" (in consistency with IA64) would suppress discussions like this
> in the future?
We should either rename i386, or resupport i386, or both.
We know what steps it takes ot resupport i386. What kind of work would
be needed to rename i386 to x86 or ia32?
--Ken Bloom
--
I usually have a GPG digital signature included as an attachment.
See http://www.gnupg.org/ for info about these digital signatures.
Reply to: