As for the 20GB partition, I have no idea. Perhaps that's a limit imposed by
libparted, but it's not a limit that *I* put into the code.
don't remember much... it wasn't a limit. maybe that was when I tried
the gentoo suggested settings...
Patches are welcome.
I'd help but I'm no dev. sys ad
Caleb Cushing wrote:
partition limits are decided by the size of the drive and the other
partitions on it.
really that seems impossible. GLI told me I couldn't have a boot
partion smaller than ~50MB it complained about it. and I think I
remember it complaining less because I was able to continu
partition limits are decided by the size of the drive and the other
partitions on it.
really that seems impossible. GLI told me I couldn't have a boot
partion smaller than ~50MB it complained about it. and I think I
remember it complaining less because I was able to continue ... about
having 140
I can understand chris's position. but it would be nice if he would
consider the development of a script for the "livecd" that could
extract the stage4 on it and include documentation in the handbook on
how to do it.
being done for next release. i'm assuming you meant stage3 here.
because as
don't forget the gentoo-catalyst@lists.gentoo.org if you want I can
put together some spec files that would build a universal cd for you.
I can understand chris's position. but it would be nice if he would
consider the development of a script for the "livecd" that could
extract the stage4 on it
I know what unsupported means chris. what I'm referring to though are
bugs that would affect i686 as well. but possibly get closed because a
dev, like yourself, requested emerge --info and saw it was build on <
i686 and closes it for that reason. probably RESOLVED WONTFIX .
On 10/11/06, Chris Gia
On Wed, 2006-10-11 at 12:18 -0400, Caleb Cushing wrote:
> I fear the idea that valid bugs may be closed do to a -march=i586.
If they're a bug dealing with an issue only present on < i686, then yes,
they likely would be, at least for release media, unless you also
provide a patch. This is what bei
I fear the idea that valid bugs may be closed do to a -march=i586.
release media should not have to be tuned to i386. perhaps thes older
machines shouldn't be a priority, but that doesn't mean they should
become completely unsupported. if a general move to i686 is desired
perhaps the archs should
Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Tue, 10 Oct 2006 16:46:05 +0200:
> A couple of years ago (when we were still using gcc-2.95 I used to run
> gentoo on my server machine which was a pentium-60 (with fdiv bug). While
> it took a while to compile the
Chris Gianelloni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue,
10 Oct 2006 12:24:21 -0400:
> There's a difference between "support" and "ability". You will retain the
> ability to install on < i686 machines. We just don't want to support it.
> This means we aren't goin
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 10:13:41AM +, 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. Of course, Gentoo is highly customizable, and folks could
> try it on 38
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 12:28:10PM -0400, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > Which kind of support are you speaking of? As for installation media,
> > i really don't care. I fully agree > release media is built built for i686 only i have no problem with that
> > either. If you really want to put Gentoo o
On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 12:52 +0200, Wernfried Haas wrote:
> 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
> Which kind of support are you speaking of? As for installation media,
> i really don't care. I
On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 10:13 +, Duncan wrote:
> Personally, I'd say 686 is the lowest reasonable to support at this point.
That's pretty much our target.
> Below that, try an appropriate binary distribution and save the days/weeks
> of compiling. Of course, Gentoo is highly customizable, and
Duncan wrote:
Anybody doing Gentoo on even a Pentium original is going to be compiling
for awhile unless they do GRP only, and that's inadvised as GRP isn't
security updated until the next release, six months later! A couple years
ago when I first started with Gentoo and was on the main user lis
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 07:13:39AM -0500, Andrew Gaffney wrote:
> Uhh, P2 is i686, which falls squarely into the realm of "supported" and
> "reasonable" :)
Oh my goodness, i forgot to upgrade my cflags/chost/foo then when i
put the disk from the old pentium into this one then. Think of all
those
Wernfried Haas wrote:
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 10:13:41AM +, 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 w
Roy Marples <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Tue, 10 Oct
2006 11:19:46 +0100:
> There are plently of people using VIA C3 class chips which are i586 in
> their home servers because they are cheap, but more importantly very quiet
> as they don't require CPU fans.
G
On Tue, Oct 10, 2006 at 10:13:41AM +, 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
Kari Hazzard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 09
Oct 2006 07:40:53 -0400:
> On Thursday 05 October 2006 10:48 am, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>> What about *our* choice to not waste time building things we don't want?
>
> So what about those of us who DO want th
Am Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:13:41 + (UTC)
schrieb "Duncan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Anybody doing Gentoo on even a Pentium original is going to be
> compiling for awhile unless they do GRP only, and that's inadvised as
> GRP isn't security updated until the next release, six months later!
Don't f
On Tuesday 10 October 2006 11:13, 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. Of course, Gentoo is highly customizable, and folks could
> try it on 386 if the
Peter Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted
[EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Mon, 09
Oct 2006 23:57:54 +0200:
> It was only a suggestion, not a decision. Of course, there are only a
> little number of this early systems.
> i686 would be really nice, i386 would be nice, too ;-)
Anybody doing Gen
23 matches
Mail list logo
