On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 17:26 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
On Sat, May 20, 2006 at 09:47:17AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-05-20 at 16:14 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > So maybe rawhide should continue with both PAE and non-PAE kernels and
> > decide on dropping the non-PAE when a release is about to be cut?
>
> I don't think so. I think you missed the "worlds of pain" part about
> having two kernels. It also becomes a resource issue.
Not within rawhide, or?
There's still just as much pain needed to do it just in the devel tree.
The only thing that removes is the CD space burden/
> I think option 1 is simply too much burden. So options 2 and 3
are
> left. It seems to come down to which is the "greater good". Which
> group is larger? The ones that don't have PAE hardware, or the ones
> that have machines with >= 4 gigs of RAM that are non-64bit.
>
> Personally, I think option 2 is fine. Of course, both my machines have
> PAE :).
If personal bits matter, then I'd go for 3. I have no 32 bit machine
with >= 4GB, but quite a few 64 bits ones. And the toy machines I
would use to play with rawhide have no PAE. I guess whoever needs that
much memory also needs something like x86_64' in-chip memory
controller.
(the only systems I've recently seen with large memories running on 32
bits were 64-bits platforms with Debian, due to Debian not supporting
multilib ...)
Sadly, many people continue to run 32-bit distros even on brand new
hardware due to dependencies on "other stuff"[1]
Jeremy
[1] Think flash and the endless going on about that in 64bit browsers,
or on the even more painful side there are things which require kernel
modules :-/