| 1 |
On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 10:13 +0000, Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Personally, I'd say 686 is the lowest reasonable to support at this point. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
That's pretty much our target. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
> Below that, try an appropriate binary distribution and save the days/weeks |
| 7 |
> of compiling. Of course, Gentoo is highly customizable, and folks could |
| 8 |
> try it on 386 if they wanted, but I don't believe it's worth supporting |
| 9 |
> below 686 at this point. That's personally. I'm sure there are folks |
| 10 |
> that would argue we should at least support 586, but I simply don't |
| 11 |
> believe it's worth it. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
There's a difference between "support" and "ability". You will retain |
| 14 |
the ability to install on < i686 machines. We just don't want to |
| 15 |
support it. This means we aren't going to be pushing out lots of new |
| 16 |
media for them. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I have a set of legacy media that I plan on pushing out. It is all |
| 19 |
built with the 2006.1 snapshot. The media is an installcd, a stage set |
| 20 |
(stage1/2/3) for "x86" compiled against the no-nptl profile, a stage set |
| 21 |
for "i586" compiled against the 2006.1 profile, and a stage set for |
| 22 |
"i586" compiled against the no-nptl profile. I don't plan on upgrading |
| 23 |
these until we switch over to the new multiple-inheritance profiles, at |
| 24 |
which point, I'll likely build a set of stages again for legacy |
| 25 |
hardware. The stages won't be supported, but they'll be available. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
-- |
| 28 |
Chris Gianelloni |
| 29 |
Release Engineering Strategic Lead |
| 30 |
Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams |
| 31 |
Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee |
| 32 |
Gentoo Foundation |
Archives