On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 10:13:41AM +0000, Duncan wrote: > Personally, I'd say 686 is the lowest reasonable to support at this point. > Below that, try an appropriate binary distribution and save the days/weeks > of compiling.
Bollocks. I run a print/samba/backup box at work which is a pentium II
400. Compiling glibc takes 3 hours here and while it may not be the
fastest box around it is enough to fulfill its duty. It also beats my
desktop (a pentium 3 866) every time i do upgrade operations involving
recompiling (bigger parts of) the system, simply because it has way
less packages installed (e.g. no X, mozilla-*, openoffice, etc). So
basically i should probably switch over my desktop if it was about
compile times - but honestly i don't care about them a lot
anyway. Also, there is no binary distribution i find as attractive as
Gentoo and know how to manage that well.
> Of course, Gentoo is highly customizable, and folks could
> try it on 386 if they wanted, but I don't believe it's worth supporting
> below 686 at this point. That's personally. I'm sure there are folks
> that would argue we should at least support 586, but I simply don't
> believe it's worth it.
Which kind of support are you speaking of? As for installation media,
i really don't care. I fully agree <i686 is dying out and if the
release media is built built for i686 only i have no problem with that
either. If you really want to put Gentoo on a i586 there are a other
ways to do it, too, but i don't think we should stop supporting i586
in general.
cheers,
Wernfried
--
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org
Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org
IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org
pgpgFK3iXNWm9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
