On Sun, 2011-03-13 at 09:18 +0100, Bastian Blank wrote: > On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 03:57:56AM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > 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 > > > 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. > > Please read again what I wrote. The fact that changing the metapackage name is disruptive? Ever heard of transitional packages? > > 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') > > Will not hold forever and you need to integrate the other architectures > into it. [...] I would expect the minimum processor for (1) to increase over time (hence my suggested name change), but other than that, what would need to change? Major new x86 features seem to be restricted to Long Mode only now. Why do other architectures matter to this? 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