On Sun, 2011-03-13 at 17:13 +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: > 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. Alternately we could go for the less disruptive renaming of '686-bigmem' to '686-pae', and defer renaming of '486' until we actually bump the processor requirement. This would also give us flavour names that closely mirror those found in other distributions. 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