From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AE9AD138334 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 13:20:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 2CA1FE08F2; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 13:20:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (dev.gentoo.org [IPv6:2001:470:ea4a:1:5054:ff:fec7:86e4]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CF4CAE0867 for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 13:20:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from katipo2.lan (unknown [203.86.205.69]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: kentnl) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id F07D0335C7F for ; Fri, 24 Aug 2018 13:20:21 +0000 (UTC) Date: Sat, 25 Aug 2018 01:19:45 +1200 From: Kent Fredric To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Gentoo i486 support Message-ID: <20180825011945.254bb9ca@katipo2.lan> In-Reply-To: <5cc35530-3d96-1a0f-b484-73ea3d58bed5@gentoo.org> References: <5cc35530-3d96-1a0f-b484-73ea3d58bed5@gentoo.org> Organization: Gentoo X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.16.0 (GTK+ 2.24.32; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; boundary="Sig_/fE=O0cC6a=7.0vCm3PhpuKU"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" X-Archives-Salt: 68256efa-0100-48df-bc8b-096ac5aecaa4 X-Archives-Hash: 05e4d0b78aac653c6990d871e2c65608 --Sig_/fE=O0cC6a=7.0vCm3PhpuKU Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, 22 Aug 2018 07:26:24 -0500 Ben Kohler wrote: > Thoughts? Is there a good reason we can't have a legacy profile for this? Or perhaps, a new (exp) arch entirely dedicated to legacy x86? The latter would be ideal for ensuring everything we *claim* works on i486 does indeed work there, and making it blatantly obvious what does and doesn't work on i486. And both strategies make it possible to restrict USE graphs to subsets that can only work on i486. The benefit of a new profile for x86 is it would assume everything currently x86 works on i486, and then exceptions can be shot on a case-by-case basis. But that's also the downside, you start with a huge set and play whack-a-mole with it, when ideally, you want to start with a *minimal* working subset and build it out ( and this is where the second option is better ) The arch-approach would also lend itself to compile-time switching in individual packages too. --Sig_/fE=O0cC6a=7.0vCm3PhpuKU Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCAAdFiEEgdrME8Lrmai3DXYJda6SGagVg7UFAluABf4ACgkQda6SGagV g7W7hhAAtL6Wa5160ii2T/4wFSPQO6fKFZ0PveEqHZe14Ll7u3MEdyIRQME6JAsa cn33ss1EI9eYuxMRX6nj0hB0tyLfnt/lqsdlgweBMcSlms3DEpSNMamqb9K4oRQ4 0fcXzKiGHgXyjk88QKVoSujmjAZ7VoL9V2YRaxtWDUv8qzVCulGeVfHLJAM8OPCq wp0ruS+nn+2EOpjbYLd3AjUXR/bA/pkbG5R9JSVOSnxELZqo1M2ULNsE3K1j8NBD B0ER003nROZZgXA1PjIMzHh5j7+/U41ZpPz/D6MH7WdnzNe064Bf3ApS0mtFNNTO v4vgqDSHWOlMkQr0vcwsVt2uXeKiMLvApyNfCN/pDy2g2gPzTaa0jd/AITsMThsU zpQj4BbNOJ2DkYAUpysKawPNV/VgnIvD5nYjQhLwa3GoBq2ed7SKioNNcA7gCrXn 6F1gg/uw2eiIEwkvuX2TGSVOcbMIMMPxfoszDM2ml5ELSQSa5qM1EKmw3r3jRXOo cE9UcUyetI54m9eCO+1daddpQjW0ooRVubRYmuJoFI7Ij+k5rqHm/i6ZyEhry3h0 jwCIqErx86RF5akvXhBFYOQQ0Bh3BrPv+UIQMB2uTNw/nGHRR4w4CmMAofzAM8kZ d1zyMAbUPXXVVhfW0UgU2NJAPnThomUsSoToKcPLqqzjvTfHB8w= =LJMa -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/fE=O0cC6a=7.0vCm3PhpuKU--