On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 14:02 -0700, Josh Triplett wrote: > Ben Hutchings wrote: > >On Sun, 2012-05-20 at 11:27 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > >> Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> writes: > >>> Eventually (wheezy+2? +3?) we would stop building a kernel package > >>> for i386. > >> > >> As in drop the i386 arch? > > > > No, keep i386 userland only. Though we might consider reducing even > > that to a 'partial architecture' that has only libraries (similar to > > ia32-libs today, only cleaner). > > I'd love to see that happen someday, but at the moment, new x86 systems > still get sold that don't support 64-bit. Notably, many low-power Atom > processors still don't support 64-bit. Right, though I think these are going into phones now, not netbooks. > If at some point 64-bit becomes > a required feature on all new x86 processors, with a definite indication > that no new 32-bit-only processors will ever show up, then a few years > after that this change could become reasonable. [...] So about 2030 then? I don't believe we need to wait that long - for example, we dropped support for 386-class processors in 2004 even though Intel was still selling them (finally EOL'd in 9/2007, apparently). But certainly we should consider just how many systems might be affected by changes in minimum specs. (Should we consider gathering selected hardware specs in popcon?) Ben. -- Ben Hutchings You can't have everything. Where would you put it?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part