| 1 |
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 10:13:41AM +0000, Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Personally, I'd say 686 is the lowest reasonable to support at this point. |
| 3 |
> Below that, try an appropriate binary distribution and save the days/weeks |
| 4 |
> of compiling. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Bollocks. I run a print/samba/backup box at work which is a pentium II |
| 7 |
400. Compiling glibc takes 3 hours here and while it may not be the |
| 8 |
fastest box around it is enough to fulfill its duty. It also beats my |
| 9 |
desktop (a pentium 3 866) every time i do upgrade operations involving |
| 10 |
recompiling (bigger parts of) the system, simply because it has way |
| 11 |
less packages installed (e.g. no X, mozilla-*, openoffice, etc). So |
| 12 |
basically i should probably switch over my desktop if it was about |
| 13 |
compile times - but honestly i don't care about them a lot |
| 14 |
anyway. Also, there is no binary distribution i find as attractive as |
| 15 |
Gentoo and know how to manage that well. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> Of course, Gentoo is highly customizable, and folks could |
| 18 |
> try it on 386 if they wanted, but I don't believe it's worth supporting |
| 19 |
> below 686 at this point. That's personally. I'm sure there are folks |
| 20 |
> that would argue we should at least support 586, but I simply don't |
| 21 |
> believe it's worth it. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Which kind of support are you speaking of? As for installation media, |
| 24 |
i really don't care. I fully agree <i686 is dying out and if the |
| 25 |
release media is built built for i686 only i have no problem with that |
| 26 |
either. If you really want to put Gentoo on a i586 there are a other |
| 27 |
ways to do it, too, but i don't think we should stop supporting i586 |
| 28 |
in general. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
cheers, |
| 31 |
Wernfried |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org |
| 35 |
Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org |
| 36 |
IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org |
Archives