Andrew Cater wrote: > 32 bit Intel/AMD will likely disappear from the kernel if it becomes too > hard to support. I've just had a quick look at the Fit-PC site - all of > them look to be 64 bit capable. You want something low power - 64 bit ARM? > There does come a point when 32 bit x86 really isn't viable - that's round > about now in my humble estimation, if it wasn't actually two years ago. > Crucially, the boost library is hard to build - Firefox is built on 64 bit > to work on 32 bit - and those are the obvious ones. If you want the > distributions to spend time building on 64 bit for you to run on 32 bit > hardware which is significantly old you do need to show a demonstrable > need and perhaps find sponsors for a toolchain and permanent build at this > point.
I alaready looked for a replacement. Surprisingly the devices with 3 or 4 network cards cost > 400,- US$ and consume more power. I do not see a reason why I should throw away a device that is working and will be working. There was nothing ARM based, I could find. I checked yesterday - as Charles Curley said the demand is near to the base system - no fancy browser or whatever 372 packages 279 of which are i386. So indeed the question is about the toolchain. I have no experience in finding sponsors or whatever. For me it will be sufficient if I could build those packages locally. I'll put it on the list for the next year. Help and advise how to proceed is appreciated.
