Apparently, though unproven, at 11:29 on Friday 04 February 2011, Nils Holland did opine thusly:
> Florian Philipp wrote: > > Am 04.02.2011 01:27, schrieb Alan McKinnon: > >> Yes, if you are real smart it can be done. But "real smart" really does > >> mean > >> "real smart" i.e. not for the faint of heart and certainly not worth > >> being > >> officially supported. > > > > Is the same true for more compatible arches like i486 -> i686? I have a > > system where I used the wrong stage-3 and now I'm stuck with an i486 > > CHOST on an Atom netbook where I could use every bit of performance. > > Yep, that's about the same direction I was wondering about when asking my > question. > > Specifically, I've been playing around with catalyst a bit in order to > create my own stage3 tarballs and install discs. Works fine. But then I > started to wonder about the following: I'd probably like to make my own > stage3 and install disc i486 or even i386, so that it works "everywhere". > Then, on whatever machine I install it, I would probably like to change > the CHOST to something suitable for that machine, and that's actually what > the comment in /etc/make.conf suggests against doing. As a result, I > started to wonder why this is so, and what exactly would happen if done > anyway. > > Of course, this is not really a big problem. I could create multiple > stage3's with catalyst whenever I really need one to install on a machine > and have that stage3 by of the right type for the machine right from the > start. But still, always eager to learn, I thought I'd ask about the > background behind all that stuff. ;-) Interestingly, Ubuntu has always built for basic arches, and they seem to get away with it. IIRC they are now on i586 but for the longest time used i386. No performance issues. You might want to investigate how they do their builds and see if you can use their tricks. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
