Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: Thomas Flavel <thomasfl@××××××××××××.uk>
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] odds and ends
Date: Wed, 24 Jan 2001 16:43:21
Message-Id: 20010124234415.F29166@tsuny.ctn.cogs.susx.ac.uk
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-dev] odds and ends by 320095285153-0001@t-online.de (Achim Gottinger)
1 On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 12:10:38AM +0100, Achim Gottinger wrote:
2 > Thomas Flavel wrote:
3 >
4 > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 03:29:04PM -0700, drobbins@g.o wrote:
5 > >
6 > > > 1.0_rc4-pre2 is fully compatible with all modern Intel and Intel-compatible
7 > > > processors, from the i486 on up. While 1.0_rc4-pre2 is optimized for the
8 > > > 486, Achim plans to build several different versions of 1.0_rc4 optimized for
9 > > > various processors. 1.0_rc4-pre2 has been tested on K6 systems and works
10 > >
11 > > I don't understand why not a 386? I kind of expected the distcd to be 386
12 > > binaries, and then to compile and install optimised to whatever my processor
13 > > happens to be? What am I mis-understanding? ;)
14 > >
15 > > How would gentoo be installed on a 386?
16 >
17 > You can build all the sys packages with a CHOST of i386-pc-linux-gnu and merge them
18 > to some temporary place.
19 > Then chroot there and recompile and remerge all packages. Eighter do this a few times
20 > or follow the dependencies
21 > starting by glibc to be sure you have no statically linked in i486 assembler code in
22 > there. Then you can build the
23 > other stuff you need and you should have a i386 based system.
24 > Do you still use i386 ? My oldest is an i486SX/25 with a 200MB HD running as a
25 > firewall here under gentoo.
26
27 No, I don't use any 386s, I'm just curious :)
28
29 > The i486 version is definetly slower that the i686 version we had before using i386
30 > won't make things better.
31
32 Is the performace hit really that great?
33
34 > If there really is a need for a i386 version I can build one.
35
36 I don't need one myself :)
37
38
39 > > > sys-* layout
40 > > > ------------
41 > > >
42 > > > Achim and I have resolved how to determine what goes in the sys-* categories.
43 > > > We are breaking with FreeBSD tradition by making the sys-* categories contain
44 > > > _only_ a barebones, minimal system -- the minimal Gentoo system that can still
45 > > > recompile itself, with a few exceptions. Previously, what was included in
46 > > > sys-* was more of a subjective thing, i.e. what I would like to see in a basic
47 > > > Gentoo Linux server install, the tools I personally like, etc.
48 > > >
49 > > > Rather than do this, we're going to be integrating some new functionality into
50 > > > Portage that's going to be very, very nice and will allow everyone to have the
51 > > > kind of "base" system that they like. Portage will recognize your selection not
52 > > > only at install time, but throughout the lifetime of your system, prompting you
53 > > > to upgrade or add new packages when necessary.
54 > >
55 > > Excellent. Roughly what size is minimum now?
56 >
57 > Currently about 200MB with lots of package-docs, and the development tools, but if
58 > you unmerge
59 > all sys-devel packages beside the c++-libs and spython remove /usr/doc and /usr/src
60 > and all the static libs in /lib and /usr/lib you only need about 130MB and still have
61 > a runable system. Other optimizations could be turning of building
62 > of localdata-stuff in glibc removing unneccesary zoneinfo and terminfo entrys...
63 >
64 > Hmm, maybe we should introduce a new USE flag to trigger build of packages with only
65 > the really neccesary stuff.
66 >
67
68 imo it would be great to be able to do that
69
70 - Tom