Re: 64-bit time_t transition for 32-bit archs: a proposal
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA384
Helmut Grohne dixit:
>I'm inclined to call this consensus now and therefore ask those that do
>not agree with it to reply here - even if your reply is only stating
I disagree.
I would like to see a long-term commitment against electronic waste
and to see support for i386 as a second-class but fully supported
platform, with 64-bit time_t and off_t, d-i, kernel and everything.
In particular I would, at the same time, like the baseline lowered
to i586 again. It was raised mostly for multimedia stuff, and it’s
now justifyable to ask people to use amd64 or armhf or something for
that.
Besides being a fully supported bootable platform for old but still
serviceable hardware the M-A support is also worthwhile. I run the
i386 version of firefox-esr on some systems to naturally limit its
resource usage, for example.
Ideally we’d keep the old i386 around for legacy binary-only libraries
and executables and add an i586 architecture with a differing dynamic
linker path; all solibs would be in the M-A-qualified path anyway. Maybe
we could even use one of the various existing ELF header fields to
distinguish them for the kernel, if needed.
I’m mildly willing to help out as part of a porter team, but not be the
only porter. I do have an affected system (EeePC, though I need to
do some hardware maintenance (HDD swap etc.) first) which I occasionally
use. That being said I’ve reduced my involvement in bookworm/sid due to
the systemdification, so I would prefer to not be the primarily respon‐
sible developer.
bye,
//mirabilos
- --
„Cool, /usr/share/doc/mksh/examples/uhr.gz ist ja ein Grund,
mksh auf jedem System zu installieren.“
-- XTaran auf der OpenRheinRuhr, ganz begeistert
(EN: “[…]uhr.gz is a reason to install mksh on every system.”)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.14 (MirBSD)
Comment: ☃ ЦΤℱ—８ ☕☂☄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=lfL0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: