This would probably be a good time to get a fully automated building setup going. We certainly have the hardware for it now.
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 11:12 PM, Gaetan Bisson <[email protected]> wrote: > [2016-09-19 20:57:01 +0200] Balló György via arch-dev-public: >> 2016-09-19 15:34 GMT+02:00 Allan McRae <[email protected]>: >> > >> > If we limit our choice based on your CPU, then we need to limit based on >> > the other CPU mentioned in this thread. >> > >> > That should not be a consideration at all. What we need to do is think >> > about what make our distribution worthy of being a distribution. >> > Original the selling points were rolling release, vanilla packages and >> > optimised binaries. We have lost the latter. Do we want to get it back? >> > >> >> Another option could be to keep i686 and x86_64 as is, and introduce new >> architectures with automatically built optimised packages for i686 + SSE2 >> or SSE3, and for x86_64 + SSE4.2 or AVX. This is something similar to your >> option #4, but keeps the compatibility with all existing systems. > > Yes! > > And I vote to put you in charge of the legacy platforms so the rest of > us can focus on building software that uses more than half of the > transistors >90% of us own. Besides, you'll do a much better job at it > than me, given it's been nearly five years I last tested an i686 binary. > > So I say we create a new architecture that includes all extensions > available on >90% of currently available hardware, make that our primary > architecture, and let people interested in legacy platforms figure out > the rest of the plan. > > Cheers. > > -- > Gaetan
