Re: Selection of roadmap for i386 platform End-of-Life (EOL)

[Loganaden Velvindron <loganaden@xxxxxxxxx>]

--001a11c37f5ab7780a04da9b1eaa
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

No NX-bit on i386.

Long live x64.




On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 6:01 AM, Justin Sherrill
<justin@shiningsilence.com>wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 7:15 AM, John Marino <dragonflybsd@marino.st>
> wrote:
>
> > 1) Agreement on the EOL date (or Release if it's pegged to a release)
>
> I'd rather peg to a release; I'd assume we'd want to truncate i386 at
> the time of a release, instead of somewhere between two releases.
> Since release dates can be a little floaty, that's easier to manage.
>
> > 2) A declaration of which road map will be used (method #1 or #2)
>
> I don't know what the usage ratio of i386-only machines is at this
> point; I'd feel more confident if I knew the impact, but there's no
> way to find that out.
>
> #2 (Or Sam's #3) appeals to me just because I've wanted something that
> could be called a long-term support release for a while.  A
> disadvantage of x86_64 is no linuxlator support, but keeping i386
> around isn't going to solve that problem.
>



-- 
This message is strictly personal and the opinions expressed do not
represent those of my employers, either past or present.

--001a11c37f5ab7780a04da9b1eaa
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr">No NX-bit on i386.<div><br></div><div style>Long live x64.=
</div><div style><br></div><div style><br></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_e=
xtra"><br><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 6:01 AM, J=
ustin Sherrill <span dir=3D"ltr">&lt;<a href=3D"mailto:justin@shiningsilenc=
e.com" target=3D"_blank">justin@shiningsilence.com</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br=
>
<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1p=
x #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class=3D"im">On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 7:=
15 AM, John Marino &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:dragonflybsd@marino.st";>dragonflyb=
sd@marino.st</a>&gt; wrote:<br>

<br>
</div><div class=3D"im">&gt; 1) Agreement on the EOL date (or Release if it=
&#39;s pegged to a release)<br>
<br>
</div>I&#39;d rather peg to a release; I&#39;d assume we&#39;d want to trun=
cate i386 at<br>
the time of a release, instead of somewhere between two releases.<br>
Since release dates can be a little floaty, that&#39;s easier to manage.<br=
>
<div class=3D"im"><br>
&gt; 2) A declaration of which road map will be used (method #1 or #2)<br>
<br>
</div>I don&#39;t know what the usage ratio of i386-only machines is at thi=
s<br>
point; I&#39;d feel more confident if I knew the impact, but there&#39;s no=
<br>
way to find that out.<br>
<br>
#2 (Or Sam&#39;s #3) appeals to me just because I&#39;ve wanted something t=
hat<br>
could be called a long-term support release for a while. =A0A<br>
disadvantage of x86_64 is no linuxlator support, but keeping i386<br>
around isn&#39;t going to solve that problem.<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear=3D"all"><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir=3D"=
ltr"><div style=3D"text-align:left">This message is strictly personal and t=
he opinions expressed do not represent those of my employers, either past o=
r present.</div>
<br><br>=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0=
 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 <br><br></div>
</div>

--001a11c37f5ab7780a04da9b1eaa--