i386 and BunsenLabs

Head_on_a_Stick · 2025-03-23 16:00:42

Debian will be dropping the i386 kernels and installer support for the upcoming trixie release, as mentioned here and on the Debian bug site: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugrepo … ug=1084783

Some alternatives have been mentioned later in the linked thread so I thought I would follow micko01's suggestion to open a new topic for the subject.

I would personally recommend OpenBSD, as mentioned in the other thread, and it seems to be fairly simple to construct a custom site*.tar.gz file set with the accompanying install.site script, as outlined here then add those to a custom i386 installation ISO image by modifying the upstream Makefile. If time allows I might try either porting deadbang or use shep's desktop and share that on SourceForge.

Both antiX and DamnSmallLinux have been mentioned as alternatives but they would need a new source for their i386 kernels, not sure how they're managing that. This thread suggests the antiX community might have to support it themselves. Does anybody know any better?

Last edited by Head_on_a_Stick (2025-03-23 16:01:40)

johnraff · 2025-03-24 05:35:18

Thanks for starting this discussion!

I will drop a couple of disclaimers here:

1) With our small dev team, the chances of an official BunsenLabs 32bit Carbon release can be fairly said to be zero. With no Debian kernel, installer or live-build support it's just not on.

2) I have a nice little 32bit laptop that I have a personal interest in not throwing away, preferably with something like BL installed.

So private projects, HOW-TO threads and the like are very much OK.

The BL packages are in .deb format which would mean Debian-based distros would have a better chance of getting somewhere close, though of course the wallpaper, theming etc could be applied to any system and it would at least look like BL.

---
A previous discussion thread:
No 32bit Carbon release?
and a couple of posts:
https://forums.bunsenlabs.org/viewtopic … 48#p140748
https://forums.bunsenlabs.org/viewtopic … 33#p141033

johnraff · 2025-03-24 05:37:30

A hint that the Debian devs might keep at least the 32bit source code for debian-installer for a while, so even without the binary people could build it themselves:
https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugrepo … 1084783#12

greenjeans · 2025-03-24 15:20:23

Not too much to add here, just thoughts...

If an ongoing 32 bit kernel source can be found, that's great, but what is the extent of support for 32 bit in most of the programs we commonly use, and what will happen to that support if Debian is discontinuing support for the kernel and in the installer?

But I can offer ongoing testing if ya'll decide to do something about 32 bit. Down at the library I have 4 ancient machines with old CRT monitors, haven't fired any up yet but i'm pretty sure they are all 32 bit, with 256 mb of ram, lol.

Was trying to think of a use for them rather than just junking them. 3 are old Dell machines that have XP I think and they're identical as far as I know, and one older Gateway that may have come with like windows 2000. So i'll have at least 2 different models for testing. I wonder if I can still find ram for those old machines, 256 mb will be seriously difficult to try and work with....

Anyhoo, just thinking out loud here, I still have people occasionally downloading an old 32 bit mini I made back in 2017, so I know there's still some demand for such.

DeepDayze · 2025-03-24 17:23:43

It would also fall on users to build their own 32 bit kernels beyond the 6.11 kernel which is the last one for 32 bit, if they want to keep their 32 bit installs going thru Trixie and perhaps beyond unless Debian team decides to no longer provide 32 bit packages alongside the 64 bit ones. This will have to be kept in mind as several distros already dropped 32 bit completely and Debian may well do the same for Forky and beyond.

Last edited by DeepDayze (2025-03-24 17:27:22)

Head_on_a_Stick · 2025-03-25 20:20:51

OpenBSD will work with 256MiB of RAM. I think the minimum recommended is 64MiB, which is significantly better than Linux can manage.

#1 2025-03-23 16:00:42

i386 and BunsenLabs

#2 2025-03-24 05:35:18

Re: i386 and BunsenLabs

#3 2025-03-24 05:37:30

Re: i386 and BunsenLabs

#4 2025-03-24 15:20:23

Re: i386 and BunsenLabs

#5 2025-03-24 17:23:43

Re: i386 and BunsenLabs

#6 2025-03-25 20:20:51

Re: i386 and BunsenLabs

Board footer