Gentoo Logo
Gentoo Spaceship




Note: Due to technical difficulties, the Archives are currently not up to date. GMANE provides an alternative service for most mailing lists.
c.f. bug 424647
List Archive: gentoo-dev
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Headers:
To: gentoo-dev@g.o
From: Thomas Flavel <thomasfl@...>
Subject: Re: odds and ends
Date: Wed Jan 24 16:44:01 2001
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

References:
odds and ends
-- drobbins
Re: odds and ends
-- Thomas Flavel
Re: odds and ends
-- Achim Gottinger
Navigation:
Lists: gentoo-dev: < Prev By Thread Next > < Prev By Date Next >
Previous by thread:
Re: odds and ends
Next by thread:
odds and ends
Previous by date:
Re: odds and ends
Next by date:
Re: odds and ends


Updated Jun 17, 2009

Summary: Archive of the gentoo-dev mailing list.

Donate to support our development efforts.

Copyright 2001-2013 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Questions, Comments? Contact us.