Re: should we really avoid the 686 kernel image?
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: should we really avoid the 686 kernel image?
- From: Vagrant Cascadian <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2010 12:44:19 -0700
- Message-id: <20101105194419.GH2568@talon.fglan>
- In-reply-to: <20101030141241.GA5089@login1.uio.no>
- References: <email@example.com> <20101030135936.GY5089@login1.uio.no> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20101030141241.GA5089@login1.uio.no>
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 04:12:41PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
> Well, lets begin by exploring why it the 686 kernel is on the avoid
> list, then. :)
> It is on the avoid list because each kernel included in the DVD uses
> around 25-30 MB on the DVD. That space can be used to include a lot
> of the packages we want to have included on the DVD. We have to have
> the 486 kernel to get LTSP working,
this isn't exactly true... we have to have a -486 kernel to get LTSP working
with the *defaults*. debian-edu could easily configure LTSP to use a -686
kernel; it would be merely one more divergence from the LTSP defaults.
probably the easiest would be to provide a custom ltsp-build-client plugin that
prefers the -686 kernel.
i've pondered making this the default, although some (relatively recent)
thin-clients don't actually support 686 instructions. i'm not sure how widely
used 486/586 desktop machines are anymore, but it does come up occasionally.
both cases might be rare enough that -686 would make a better default.