| 1 |
On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 9:57 AM Mike Gilbert <floppym@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On Fri, Aug 24, 2018 at 9:19 AM Kent Fredric <kentnl@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 07:26:24 -0500 |
| 6 |
> > Ben Kohler <bkohler@g.o> wrote: |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > > Thoughts? |
| 9 |
> > |
| 10 |
> > Is there a good reason we can't have a legacy profile for this? |
| 11 |
> > |
| 12 |
> > Or perhaps, a new (exp) arch entirely dedicated to legacy x86? |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> Sounds like a lot of work for something that will be used by very few people. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
I think an exp arch is also overkill. How many packages simply can't |
| 18 |
be built for i486? I think a profile+masking makes a lot more sense |
| 19 |
than an entire new level of QA that touches every ebuild in the tree |
| 20 |
because there might be a few packages that don't work on 25 year old |
| 21 |
hardware. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Rich |
Archives