Re: would anybody use binary packages for NetBSD/i386 10?

[beaker%sdf.org@localhost]

Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost> wrote:

> In contemplating bulk builds and resources, I wonder if there are still
> people who:
>
>   are running NetBSD/i386 (as opposed to amd64)
>
>   are using the binary packges from quarterly branches on ftp.netbsd.org
>
>   are running NetBSD 10 already, or who intend to move to it soon or
>   after release
>
> If you have a system that meets the above, please either reply here (the
> first few people :-) or just answer me privately.  (I'd also be
> interested in which category below your use is.)
>
> Basically, I would think about not doing bulk builds if very few want
> them, relative to the effort/resources required to create them.
>
>
> My guess is that at this point, i386 use is limited to
>
>   a) old embedded-type systems (soekris)
>   b) systems that are running i386 because they were first installed many
>      years ago and haven't been converted to amd64 for no good reason or
>      for some odd special case odd reason
>   c) build systems to support category a/b systems, for testing or
>      building private binary package sets
>   d) retrocomputing
>
> and that the amount of use with ftp.n.o binary packages is extremely
> small.
>
> As a personal example -- and I am somewhat trailing edge -- I know of
> two NetBSD/i386 systems in category b (one each no good reason and one
> special case odd reason), and 2 in category c.  I have one system that
> would be category a, replaced several years ago and powered off because
> it was underpowered, that I might or might not ever power up again, and
> if I did I wouldn't use ftp.n.o packages on it.
>

Yup, still using 32bit NetBSD.  I do like the binaries but really most of
the stuff I use is easy to build under pkgsrc.  I would appreciate having
a usable Xorg w/o having to build it.  I'm in category "d" for sure.