Re: Reducing the amount of i386 Live images for bullseye
In my humble opinion, my position is to keep those variants that don't
require 3D graphics acceleration (match heaviest desktops).
__________
I'm using this express-made address because personal addresses aren't
masked enough at this mail public archive. Public archive administrator
should fix this against automated addresses collectors.
El 17/10/19 a les 18:07, Jonathan Carter ha escrit:
> Hi Live team
>
> For a while, the discussions have popped up whether we still want or
> need i386 desktop live images. Building all those images and testing
> them at a regular basis (sometimes regular as in, every few months) and
> also at release time is quite tedious, and they're pretty much useless
> compared to the amd64 images on any computer from the last 5 years (yes,
> that crappy Atom cpu laptop that is locked to 32 bit is older than 5
> years already).
>
> I believe that at least the KDE and Gnome i386 images aren't that
> useful. You need a reasonably beefy computer with enough memory to run
> those, and at that point you might as well use the amd64 media.
>
> Since many other distributions are making the jump to dropping i386
> installation media entirely, I think that it's a good idea to keep some
> live media around for one more release, as long as bullseye continues to
> make it easy to do so. This will make it possible for users with 32-bit
> hardware (who probably mostly uses it for hobby/specialist reasons by
> the time bullseye is released) to continue using it for a few more years
> on a supported linux system.
>
> At DebConf we discussed this for a bit too, where I said I'd take it to
> the debian-live list for some additional feedback.
>
> Here is the list of our current i386 images:
>
> * debian-live-i386-cinnamon
> * debian-live-i386-gnome
> * debian-live-i386-kde
> * debian-live-i386-lxde
> * debian-live-i386-lxqt
> * debian-live-i386-mate
> * debian-live-i386-standard
> * debian-live-i386-xfce
>
> I propose:
> * At the minimum, dropping: cinnamon, gnome and kde
> * Keep at least standard and one of the lighter desktop environments
> (perhaps lxqt? xfce?)
>
> I'm not sure where the best place is to draw the lines, but standard is
> very useful on old hardware since installing a headless/cli-only system
> using a live image is a lot easier on old hardware than installing every
> individual package using dpkg. And it seems worth while having one GUI
> system available too (if only to test things like whether the hardware
> even works on Debian, which I did recently on an old ThinkPad with S3
> graphics).
>
> So, what I'm asking is, how far should we cut back? Is there any
> compelling reason at all to keep any of the 3 installation mediums I
> want to drop? Do we need more than one gui system? And if just one, any
> strong preference (along with reasons?).
>
> -Jonathan
>
Reply to: