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)
On Thu, Jan 25, 2001 at 12:10:38AM +0100, Achim Gottinger wrote:
> Thomas Flavel wrote: > > > On Wed, Jan 24, 2001 at 03:29:04PM -0700, drobbins@g.o wrote: > > > > > 1.0_rc4-pre2 is fully compatible with all modern Intel and Intel-compatible > > > processors, from the i486 on up. While 1.0_rc4-pre2 is optimized for the > > > 486, Achim plans to build several different versions of 1.0_rc4 optimized for > > > various processors. 1.0_rc4-pre2 has been tested on K6 systems and works > > > > I don't understand why not a 386? I kind of expected the distcd to be 386 > > binaries, and then to compile and install optimised to whatever my processor > > happens to be? What am I mis-understanding? ;) > > > > How would gentoo be installed on a 386? > > You can build all the sys packages with a CHOST of i386-pc-linux-gnu and merge them > to some temporary place. > Then chroot there and recompile and remerge all packages. Eighter do this a few times > or follow the dependencies > starting by glibc to be sure you have no statically linked in i486 assembler code in > there. Then you can build the > other stuff you need and you should have a i386 based system. > Do you still use i386 ? My oldest is an i486SX/25 with a 200MB HD running as a > firewall here under gentoo.
No, I don't use any 386s, I'm just curious :)
> The i486 version is definetly slower that the i686 version we had before using i386 > won't make things better.
Is the performace hit really that great?
> If there really is a need for a i386 version I can build one.
I don't need one myself :)
> > > sys-* layout > > > ------------ > > > > > > Achim and I have resolved how to determine what goes in the sys-* categories. > > > We are breaking with FreeBSD tradition by making the sys-* categories contain > > > _only_ a barebones, minimal system -- the minimal Gentoo system that can still > > > recompile itself, with a few exceptions. Previously, what was included in > > > sys-* was more of a subjective thing, i.e. what I would like to see in a basic > > > Gentoo Linux server install, the tools I personally like, etc. > > > > > > Rather than do this, we're going to be integrating some new functionality into > > > Portage that's going to be very, very nice and will allow everyone to have the > > > kind of "base" system that they like. Portage will recognize your selection not > > > only at install time, but throughout the lifetime of your system, prompting you > > > to upgrade or add new packages when necessary. > > > > Excellent. Roughly what size is minimum now? > > Currently about 200MB with lots of package-docs, and the development tools, but if > you unmerge > all sys-devel packages beside the c++-libs and spython remove /usr/doc and /usr/src > and all the static libs in /lib and /usr/lib you only need about 130MB and still have > a runable system. Other optimizations could be turning of building > of localdata-stuff in glibc removing unneccesary zoneinfo and terminfo entrys... > > Hmm, maybe we should introduce a new USE flag to trigger build of packages with only > the really neccesary stuff. >
imo it would be great to be able to do that - Tom