Re: proposal [Forky i386] : linux-image-pentium4

On Sun, Aug 16, 2026 at 06:06:14PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
>From my point of view of maintainer, I feel a stronger pressure to keep
>i386 support, because 1) it is the only 32-bit architecture tested on
>Salsa CI,

Caring too much about 32-bit architectures at this point may be considered 
a misfeature. As a reminder we have only 1.5 of those.

Should we ask Salsa CI people to remove that?

>It gives the impression that deliverying as many packages as
>possible is considered important. 

This is definitely a misfeature.

>(And I am happy to read opinions that
>agree that many i386 packages are actually not important).

(I assume this means "I was happy when I read the recent messages in this 
thread", not a request for such opinions)

>Anyway, i386 autopkgtest failures in Sid eventually kick out the
>package in Testing from all architectures.

More reasons to drop those packages on i386.

> - We disable i386 building for this package.
>
>All of these outcomes are extra work for the maintainer.

Yes, disabling should be made easier.

-- 
WBR, wRAR

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=8R0b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----