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

[John McCue <jmclists%jmcunx.com@localhost>]

On Sun, Aug 13, 2023 at 08:32:20AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> In contemplating bulk builds and resources, I wonder if there are still
> people who:
>
>  are running NetBSD/i386 (as opposed to amd64)

I have an old i386 System that is on 9.3, once 10.0
is released I plan on upgrading that system to 10.0.
Unless there is a 9.4.  But I feel eventually 10.0 release
will end up on the i386 I have.

>  are using the binary packges from quarterly branches on ftp.netbsd.org

On that i386, I use quarterly branches now via 9.3,
but for 10.0, I am *not* sure if I would need quarterly.
I will never use X on that system and since most security
issues I care about seem to occur with Firefox and Friends,
I doubt I would benefit from quarterly branches on the i386.

>  are running NetBSD 10 already, or who intend to move to it soon or
>  after release

Right now I only have 10.0-BETA on an amd64.  I am in
the process of upgrading that to the newest nightly
build now :)

> 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.

For i386, I think I could live with that since what I
would be compiling are just TUI and command-line items.
But I do have a diskspace/performance concern with compiles,
which I should be able to deal with.

> 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

Item "d" is me.

> 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.

Thanks for your efforts,
John

--
[t]csh(1) - "An elegant shell, for a more... civilized age."
                        - Paraphrasing Star Wars