| 1 |
On Wed, 2004-05-26 at 22:14, Seemant Kulleen wrote: |
| 2 |
> If I may pipe in here -- I also see no need for *all* the sub-arches we |
| 3 |
> offer. So I'm glad you're thinking of this route -- I think it might be |
| 4 |
> still ok to offer x86, 486, 586 and 686. Honestly, 686 is the sub-arch |
| 5 |
> that least needs GRP -- provided we keep in mind that GRP's sole raison |
| 6 |
> d'etre is fast install. The slower sub-arches are what need the boost |
| 7 |
> more than p4, ath-xp, ath-mp, p3, and god knows what else we have on the |
| 8 |
> mirrors. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> Thanks, |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
Seemant - |
| 13 |
You are always welcome to "pipe in" :) I agree with your idea that the |
| 14 |
slower arches do benefit from GRP more so than the i686 class machines, |
| 15 |
but I would like to keep GRP sets at a minimum (magic number 2 or 3) for |
| 16 |
space concerns. We offer 5 sets for x86 as is(x86, i686, p3, p4, |
| 17 |
athlon-xp). |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Is there a better choice for subarches to keep? Can x86 cover the i486 |
| 20 |
and i586 people, or do we need to ditch i686 and add in a i586 set? |
| 21 |
Should we do three sets and have ix86, i586, and i686? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
My argument for keeping i686 is the sheer number of machines out there |
| 24 |
that are i686 and above. I think that x86 and i686 offer the most |
| 25 |
flexibility for what we can offer. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Cheers, |
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
John Davis |
| 30 |
Gentoo Linux Developer |
| 31 |
<http://dev.gentoo.org/~zhen> |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
---- |
| 34 |
GnuPG Public Key: <http://dev.gentoo.org/~zhen/zhen_pub.asc> |
| 35 |
Fingerprint: 2364 71BD 4BC2 705D F338 FF70 6650 1235 1946 2D47 |
Archives