From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org)
by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
(envelope-from <gentoo-dev+bounces-17600-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@gentoo.org>)
id 1GXEg3-0007C8-Im
for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:17:36 +0000
Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with SMTP id k9AAGcMZ014867;
Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:16:38 GMT
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183])
by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k9AAElle008072
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:14:48 GMT
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 085B764817
for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:14:47 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org
X-Spam-Score: -2.559
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.559 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=0.040,
BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id yoa2yvkfkgmL for <gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>;
Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:14:40 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from ciao.gmane.org (main.gmane.org [80.91.229.2])
(using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3C6064792
for <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:14:38 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from list by ciao.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.43)
id 1GXEco-0005BW-F5
for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 12:14:15 +0200
Received: from ip68-230-97-209.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.230.97.209])
by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
for <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 12:14:14 +0200
Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-230-97-209.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian))
id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00
for <gentoo-dev@gentoo.org>; Tue, 10 Oct 2006 12:14:14 +0200
X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
From: "Duncan" <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net>
Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates
shell and networkless users
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:13:41 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <egfrok$maa$3@sea.gmane.org>
References: <1160056361.6289.17.camel@party.homenetwork>
<45251647.8080307@gentoo.org> <1160058754.6289.21.camel@party.homenetwork>
<45251B7E.9020500@gentoo.org> <45255F73.5000007@gentoo.org>
<45256BE9.9030601@gentoo.org> <45260819.7040203@gentoo.org>
<1160143601.10578.7.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org>
<20061009101111.6fb6f65f@localhost> <452A0A80.4080407@gentoo.org>
<1160398042.10496.16.camel@inertia.twi-31o2.org>
<1160419368.6362.5.camel@party.homenetwork> <1160423118l.10540l.4l@spike>
<1160431074.6362.9.camel@party.homenetwork>
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-dev+help@gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+unsubscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-dev+subscribe@gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-dev.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org
X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-230-97-209.ph.ph.cox.net
User-Agent: pan 0.115 (Mrs. Kerr Says Remember the Tip Jar)
Sender: news <news@sea.gmane.org>
X-Archives-Salt: 5c1b5fc4-27d1-4eb3-bc9c-890b71794829
X-Archives-Hash: 79a0f620c836dcb6032ae1af96c6a426
Peter Weber <peterle@hottemptation.org> posted
1160431074.6362.9.camel@party.homenetwork, 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 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 list, I
believe I saw a thread where a couple folks claimed to have done it on 486
mainly to be able to say they'd done so, taking weeks of course to do it,
even compiling 24/7, but a 386? IMO there are better ways to spend your
years... <g>
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 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.
--
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list