Re: should we really avoid the 686 kernel image?
On 05. nov. 2010 20:44, Vagrant Cascadian wrote: On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 04:12:41PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: Well, lets begin by exploring why it the 686 kernel is on the avoid list, then. :) It is on the avoid list because each kernel included in the DVD uses around 25-30 MB on the DVD. That space can be used to include a lot of the packages we want to have included on the DVD. We have to have the 486 kernel to get LTSP working, this isn't exactly true... we have to have a -486 kernel to get LTSP working with the *defaults*. debian-edu could easily configure LTSP to use a -686 kernel; it would be merely one more divergence from the LTSP defaults. probably the easiest would be to provide a custom ltsp-build-client plugin that prefers the -686 kernel. i've pondered making this the default, although some (relatively recent) thin-clients don't actually support 686 instructions. i'm not sure how widely used 486/586 desktop machines are anymore, but it does come up occasionally. both cases might be rare enough that -686 would make a better default. most thin clients (not old pc's) that i use does not work with 686 kernel. if we change to 686 only. Something that probably would give a boon for diskless machines. there should be a explaination in the documentation how to install 486 on your ltsp, and make some machines use that (or all) onny -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-edu-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4cd7b147.7010...@skolelinux.no
Re: should we really avoid the 686 kernel image?
[Vagrant Cascadian] this isn't exactly true... we have to have a -486 kernel to get LTSP working with the *defaults*. debian-edu could easily configure LTSP to use a -686 kernel; it would be merely one more divergence from the LTSP defaults. Right. Good point. I gave this a try, adding a LTSP override in d-e-config and changed the avoid entry debian-edu/tasks/common from 686 to 486. I look forward to see if it work. Should show up on the DVD in a few minutes. If it does not, hopefully we can find the cause and fix it. If not, it is easy to undo. I also changed blender and wxmaxima from depends and recommends to esuggests in the tasks, to save some space on the DVD. This made enough room for the Gnome dependencies, but we are still lacking the LXDE and the language specific packages, and probably some others as well. I also suggest to change kicad to suggest to not install it by default, to avoid pulling in extra-xdg-menus and avoid the Hamradio and Electronics toplevel KDE menus and get the KDE menus to try to fit the KDE menu list in the default size of the K menu window. The change is commited in svn but not yet uploaded. Happy hacking, -- Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-edu-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101106204050.gn26...@login2.uio.no
Re: should we really avoid the 686 kernel image?
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 04:12:41PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: Well, lets begin by exploring why it the 686 kernel is on the avoid list, then. :) It is on the avoid list because each kernel included in the DVD uses around 25-30 MB on the DVD. That space can be used to include a lot of the packages we want to have included on the DVD. We have to have the 486 kernel to get LTSP working, this isn't exactly true... we have to have a -486 kernel to get LTSP working with the *defaults*. debian-edu could easily configure LTSP to use a -686 kernel; it would be merely one more divergence from the LTSP defaults. probably the easiest would be to provide a custom ltsp-build-client plugin that prefers the -686 kernel. i've pondered making this the default, although some (relatively recent) thin-clients don't actually support 686 instructions. i'm not sure how widely used 486/586 desktop machines are anymore, but it does come up occasionally. both cases might be rare enough that -686 would make a better default. live well, vagrant -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-edu-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101105194419.gh2...@talon.fglan
Re: should we really avoid the 686 kernel image?
Hi, On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 09:22:08PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: [Andreas B. Mundt] Let's drop blender. It's about the size of a kernel and will hardly be used in any school. Blender was added (actually changed form suggests to recommends) in version 0.848 with this changelog entry: * Raise the priority of blender in the graphics task from suggests to recommends, as it is mentioned on URL:http://www.slx.no/en/take-a-tour. It was found to be part of the set of applications useful to promote Debian Edu/Skolelinux, and this caused me to make sure it is installed as part of the default installation for Squeeze. I would rather drop some of the duplicate functionally listed on URL: http://wiki.debian.org/DebianEdu/Status/Squeeze before we remove packages found to be soo good that they can be used to promote Skolelinux. I think not providing blender on the DVD does not mean we cannot promote blender (as all other free software) being easily available within Skolelinux. However, it makes no sense to install prestige stuff almost nobody will use at the expense of non-famous stuff that improves the user experience for almost everyone. The popcon.skolelinux.org numbers for blender are 1.9% machines have it installed and 0.2% used it last week. Not too surprising, as it has not been part of any stable release yet. I still do not think blender is the application you to stumble upon accidentally and think: 'Wow, great I'll use that nice app from now on'. In my opinion, if anybody at all uses blender at school, he has carefully prepared to do so and will be able to install it after installation anyway if needed. I'm not against dropping blender, but I believe we should try to look at the complete picture before we do so. Sure, but probably it's hard to find a package with the importance of blender that uses a comparable amount of storage volume. BTW, we discussed the issue before: URL:http://lists.debian.org/debian-edu/2010/07/msg00278.html Best regards, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-edu-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101031081117.ga3...@flashgordon
Re: should we really avoid the 686 kernel image?
[Holger Levsen] Hi, Hi. Glad to see you are looking at the package lists. :) currently we avoid the 686 kernel image so that the package is not on the CD/DVD. Can you tell us why it is on the avoid list? So to make things easier for a tiny percentage of our users, we make things harder for the vast majority. Who does it make it harder for, and who does it make it easier for? Happy hacking, -- Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-edu-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101030135936.gy5...@login1.uio.no
Re: should we really avoid the 686 kernel image?
Hi, On Samstag, 30. Oktober 2010, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: currently we avoid the 686 kernel image so that the package is not on the CD/DVD. Can you tell us why it is on the avoid list? No. So to make things easier for a tiny percentage of our users, we make things harder for the vast majority. Who does it make it harder for, and who does it make it easier for? Installing the 486 kernel makes it harder for the majority, as they will need to install the 686 kernel manually. Installing the 486 kernel makes it easier for those few people still using hardware from the last millenium. cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: should we really avoid the 686 kernel image?
[Holger Levsen] Can you tell us why it is on the avoid list? No. Well, lets begin by exploring why it the 686 kernel is on the avoid list, then. :) It is on the avoid list because each kernel included in the DVD uses around 25-30 MB on the DVD. That space can be used to include a lot of the packages we want to have included on the DVD. We have to have the 486 kernel to get LTSP working, and we have to have the amd64 kernel to get 64-bit installation working. As having an extra kernel that was not absolutely needed pushed out several of the packages we want to install automatically during installation which made the DVD kind of useless by not being self contained, I decided the packages we wanted to install had higher priorty than a redundant kernel. The question is thus really a question of priority, and if we give higher priority to the packages being pushed out of the DVD if we include three instead of two kernels. Installing the 486 kernel makes it harder for the majority, as they will need to install the 686 kernel manually. Installing the 486 kernel makes it easier for those few people still using hardware from the last millenium. Sure. But that is not really the cause nor the consequence of dropping vs. keeping the 686 kernel. Btw, dropping this kernel should only affect the DVD (and not the netinst CD), as the netinst installation will fetch the 686 kernel from the net for machines where it is the best fit. If we want to throw out more of the packages on the netinst CD, we can even add the 686 kernel to the netinst CD, as it do not really affect the installation much. The same set of packages will be installed anyway, and instead of downloading the kernel some other packages of approximatly the same size will have to be downloaded instead. Happy hacking, -- Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-edu-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101030141241.ga5...@login1.uio.no
Re: should we really avoid the 686 kernel image?
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 03:35:11PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: Hi, currently we avoid the 686 kernel image so that the package is not on the CD/DVD. I've just talked with the kernel team about this, and they think its the wrong thing to do: 1. the 486 kernel only supports one core 2. the 486 kernel only supports 1 GiB RAM 3. the 686 kernel supports all (i386) CPUs build in the last 10 years, except the original C3 processor. Description: Linux 2.6.32 for modern PCs The Linux kernel 2.6.32 and modules for use on PCs with Intel Pentium Pro/II/III/4/4M/D/M, Xeon, Celeron, Core or Atom; AMD Geode LX/NX, Athlon (K7), Duron, Opteron, Sempron, Turion or Phenom; Transmeta Efficeon; VIA C3 Nehemiah or C7 processors. So to make things easier for a tiny percentage of our users, we make things harder for the vast majority. I dont think thats sensible. +1 Cheers, Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-edu-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101030153958.ga11...@flashgordon
Re: should we really avoid the 686 kernel image?
[Holger Levsen] I seriously doubt that. We have to have the 486 kernel only for those people running ancient hardware. LTSP works fine with 686. Well, LTSP failed to install from DVD when I updated the list of kernels to included on the DVD. I assume you have tested that this no longer is the case, given that you claim that I am not telling the truth. Nothing would make me happer, as the 686 kernel is a better alternative for modern hardware. Happy hacking, -- Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-edu-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101030154850.gb5...@login1.uio.no
Re: should we really avoid the 686 kernel image?
Hi, On Samstag, 30. Oktober 2010, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: Well, LTSP failed to install from DVD when I updated the list of kernels to included on the DVD. Thats a very different statement then saying LTSP doesnt work with 686. cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: should we really avoid the 686 kernel image?
Hi, On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 04:12:41PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: Well, lets begin by exploring why it the 686 kernel is on the avoid list, then. :) It is on the avoid list because each kernel included in the DVD uses around 25-30 MB on the DVD. That space can be used to include a lot of the packages we want to have included on the DVD. We have to have the 486 kernel to get LTSP working, and we have to have the amd64 kernel to get 64-bit installation working. As having an extra kernel that was not absolutely needed pushed out several of the packages we want to install automatically during installation which made the DVD kind of useless by not being self contained, I decided the packages we wanted to install had higher priorty than a redundant kernel. Let's drop blender. It's about the size of a kernel and will hardly be used in any school. Andi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-edu-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101030155751.ga12...@flashgordon
Re: should we really avoid the 686 kernel image?
Hi, On Samstag, 30. Oktober 2010, Andreas B. Mundt wrote: Let's drop blender. It's about the size of a kernel and will hardly be used in any school. Good idea. cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: should we really avoid the 686 kernel image?
On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 05:56:16PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: On Samstag, 30. Oktober 2010, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: Well, LTSP failed to install from DVD when I updated the list of kernels to included on the DVD. Thats a very different statement then saying LTSP doesnt work with 686. Word games again? Petter did not write LTSP doesnt work with 686, but We have to have the 486 kernel to get LTSP working, for which his later message quoted at top of this mail is an elaboration, not a very different statement. - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: should we really avoid the 686 kernel image?
[Andreas B. Mundt] Let's drop blender. It's about the size of a kernel and will hardly be used in any school. Blender was added (actually changed form suggests to recommends) in version 0.848 with this changelog entry: * Raise the priority of blender in the graphics task from suggests to recommends, as it is mentioned on URL:http://www.slx.no/en/take-a-tour. It was found to be part of the set of applications useful to promote Debian Edu/Skolelinux, and this caused me to make sure it is installed as part of the default installation for Squeeze. I would rather drop some of the duplicate functionally listed on URL: http://wiki.debian.org/DebianEdu/Status/Squeeze before we remove packages found to be soo good that they can be used to promote Skolelinux. The popcon.skolelinux.org numbers for blender are 1.9% machines have it installed and 0.2% used it last week. Not too surprising, as it has not been part of any stable release yet. I'm not against dropping blender, but I believe we should try to look at the complete picture before we do so. Happy hacking, -- Petter Reinholdtsen -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-edu-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20101030192208.gc5...@login1.uio.no
Re: should we really avoid the 686 kernel image?
Hi Jonas, On Samstag, 30. Oktober 2010, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 05:56:16PM +0200, Holger Levsen wrote: On Samstag, 30. Oktober 2010, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: Well, LTSP failed to install from DVD when I updated the list of kernels to included on the DVD. Thats a very different statement then saying LTSP doesnt work with 686. Word games again? No. Petter did not write LTSP doesnt work with 686, but We have to have the 486 kernel to get LTSP working, for which his later message quoted at top of this mail is an elaboration, not a very different statement. cheers, Holger signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
