| 1 |
Peter Weber <peterle@×××××××××××××.org> posted |
| 2 |
1160431074.6362.9.camel@×××××.homenetwork, excerpted below, on Mon, 09 |
| 3 |
Oct 2006 23:57:54 +0200: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> It was only a suggestion, not a decision. Of course, there are only a |
| 6 |
> little number of this early systems. |
| 7 |
> i686 would be really nice, i386 would be nice, too ;-) |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Anybody doing Gentoo on even a Pentium original is going to be compiling |
| 10 |
for awhile unless they do GRP only, and that's inadvised as GRP isn't |
| 11 |
security updated until the next release, six months later! A couple years |
| 12 |
ago when I first started with Gentoo and was on the main user list, I |
| 13 |
believe I saw a thread where a couple folks claimed to have done it on 486 |
| 14 |
mainly to be able to say they'd done so, taking weeks of course to do it, |
| 15 |
even compiling 24/7, but a 386? IMO there are better ways to spend your |
| 16 |
years... <g> |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Personally, I'd say 686 is the lowest reasonable to support at this point. |
| 19 |
Below that, try an appropriate binary distribution and save the days/weeks |
| 20 |
of compiling. Of course, Gentoo is highly customizable, and folks could |
| 21 |
try it on 386 if they wanted, but I don't believe it's worth supporting |
| 22 |
below 686 at this point. That's personally. I'm sure there are folks |
| 23 |
that would argue we should at least support 586, but I simply don't |
| 24 |
believe it's worth it. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 28 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 29 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
-- |
| 32 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives