Re: summarizing arch status
>The same feeling applies, to a lesser degree, with 2.4. It would be one
>thing if we were already going to be keeping 2.4 around for other users, or
>if the m68k porters put us over critical mass for being able to support 2.4
>for the good of all; but so far, everyone else I've talked to has concluded
>that their efforts were better spent porting drivers and whatnot to 2.6 than
>to try to support 2.4.
Agreed, removing 2.4 support from d-i will allow reducing its
complexity, and less complexity means less bugs.