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 :-/
