On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 11:34 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Mon, 2011-02-14 at 11:23 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: [...] > > There are several possibilities to do this: > > * Change name of meta-package: > > - Breaks nothing > > - Needs manual intervention by anyone using it > > * Don't change the name: > > - Breaks some systems > > - No manual intervention by the rest > > Rename 686-bigmem to 686. Keep the 686-bigmem metapackage as a dummy > package depending on the 686 metapackage (for one release). When the > 686 metapackage is upgraded on a system that doesn't support PAE, > display a warning with debconf. I'm wavering on this. I don't like the idea of simply renaming '686-bigmem' to '686', given there are a fair number of 686-class systems without PAE, and I don't think users with a Pentium M are going to expect that '486' is the right choice. The distinctions between these two flavours will be: 1. One processor (min 486) with 386 page tables (currently '486') 2. One or more processors with PAE page tables (currently '686-bigmem') How about naming them 'up' and 'smp-pae'? It'll be a pain to transition the metapackages, but then we should never have to go through this again when raising the minimum processor requirement. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part