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 <g...@lexort.com>: > > 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. > >