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

[Alexander Schreiber <als%thangorodrim.ch@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)

yes: NetBSD <machine> 9.3 NetBSD 9.3 (<MACHINE>) #3: Wed Aug 17 18:46:46 UTC 2022  root@<machine>:/usr/obj/sys/arch/i386/compile/<MACHINE> i386

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

Nope, what little I need I have the patience to build locally.

>   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)

PCEngines Alix, running on Geode LX800.

>   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

The Alix was what I had available when I built the system and it is
still perfectly fast enough (gateway/firewall for a commercial VOiP
device).

>   c) build systems to support category a/b systems, for testing or
>      building private binary package sets

Was/is also used for testing pkgsrc packages as it is the only 32bit
NetBSD machine I have (all others are 64bit). That was how I found that
current GlusterFs doesn't support 32bit anymore.

Kind regards,
          Alex.
-- 
"Opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and
 looks like work."                                      -- Thomas A. Edison