On Thu, Apr 05, 2007 at 06:59:16PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > > In practical terms, it seems to me that part of the fix here should really > > be to declare that we don't officially support 486 CPUs anymore, since no > > one who is using one was involved enough in the etch release to have > > documented this bug as RC until three days before release. :P
> My 486 actually does a useful job, and hence usually runs pure stable. > I figured I would upgrade it to see if anything broken, and boy did it > ever break. It is a good old reliable machine and the only 486 I have. > I guess loosing proftpd and php isn't the worst things that can happen, > although I do like my ftp server to work, as well as my web server. At > least I know have a fixed version installed so my machine works. > Maybe I am the only person left with a 486 doing useful work, but it has > run problem free for 15 years now and shows no signs of giving any. > Hopefully I will replace the 486 with a ppro in the next few months, in > which case the 486 will become available for me to just do tests on and > other experiments. Well, on that subject c.f. <http://lists.debian.org/debian-alpha/2007/04/msg00002.html>. :) > Is there any good reason 486s should not be supproted anymore? I know > why 386s are not supported anymore. Like I said, in practical terms, if a bug like this in a major server package goes unnoticed until 3 days before the release, we are not actually "supporting" 486. We support the i386 architecture quite well, but it seems only honest to admit that as a project, we don't care about 486 enough to even get 486-specific problems marked as RC in time to do anything about them for a release. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
