On Mon, Oct 04, 2004 at 12:19:16AM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote: > * 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 hard-pressed > > > 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. The d-i images really need to be built from kernel-image packages that are in the archive at the time we ship. Optimizing for 486 isn't a very good reason on its own to force another kernel build cycle. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature