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] > > Nathanel's summary: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200304/msg02112.html > > A list of proposals what to do: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200305/msg00360.html > > Some questions on this topic: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2003/debian-devel-200304/msg01895.html > > > 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 ...
So, why not fix this buginess of the build script withs going for a new i486 or i686 or whatever arch, and keeping the old i386 around for now. A new autobuilder would be needed, and today, diskspace is not really an unsolvable problem for the archive, which would grow by less than 10% anyway. Later we can either drop i386 entirely, or make a mini-i386 out of it. Other solutions might be to keep i386 around for safety, and implement beside it a newer subarch-aware ix86 archive or something such, and once that does work satisfactoryly move i386 to mini-i386. Come on, we already support 11 or so arches officially, and a bunch of other unofficially, surelly this would not be so expensive for us. Friendly, Sven Luther
