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

[Benny Siegert <bsiegert%gmail.com@localhost>]

I would like to create NetBSD 10 based CI images for Go in the near future. Having binary packages for i386 makes this immensely easier.

-- 
Benny

> Am 13.08.2023 um 14:32 schrieb Greg Troxel <gdt%lexort.com@localhost>:
> 
> 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.
> 
>