On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 09:51:07AM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote: > Package: general > Severity: serious > Tags: sarge, sid > > [please don't reassign to any gcc/libstdc++ package] > > The solution I would favour would be: > > - drop the i386 support > > - keep the i386 architecture name > > - let dpkg-architecture output the new configuration string > (i.e. i486-linux) > > - if anybody wants to start the mini-i386 architecture, we have to > find an architecture name for it. > > changing the dpkg-architecture's ARCH string to i.e. i486 would break > a lot of build scripts ...
What we have not yet decided is whether we drop i386 support for C++ packages or for all packages. If we choose the former, the mini-i386 will just need to contain the important C++ packages. If we choose the later, developers can start to activate i486 optimisation in random packages. In any case we need to make clear if we allow 486 optimisation that are not i386 compatible or not. Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here.
