Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
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 and include documentation in the handbook on how to do it. because as is the installers don't allow for enough flexibility. I personally would like to know who decided to put bottom and I think top partition size limits in the installer. the limits should have been dictated by the filesystem limits themselves. my system my choice. another option might be a skip section of the installer. that way we can on do the stage4 part, and forget the rest if we want. would any of this be such a hard and impossible thing for releng to do and support? -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
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 is the installers don't allow for enough flexibility. on the contrary, most of our problems in the installer come from offering too much flexibility. I personally would like to know who decided to put bottom and I think top partition size limits in the installer. the limits should have been dictated by the filesystem limits themselves. partition limits are decided by the size of the drive and the other partitions on it. another option might be a skip section of the installer. that way we can on do the stage4 part, and forget the rest if we want. would any of this be such a hard and impossible thing for releng to do and support? this support already exists. the installer has modes for stage4 and chroot installations. -Codeman -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
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 140GB /home partition it only wanted to make a 20GB partition. but it absolutely would not do 32MB boot partion I have. it was like giving me a negative number, I assumed these are features not bugs. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
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 continue ... about having 140GB /home partition it only wanted to make a 20GB partition. but it absolutely would not do 32MB boot partion I have. it was like giving me a negative number, I assumed these are features not bugs. That's not an installer imposed limit. It's a limitation of the slider bar used for choosing the size. I haven't figured out how to decouple it from the entry fields while still making it useful if you want to use it. Patches are welcome. 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. -- Andrew Gaffneyhttp://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/ Gentoo Linux Developer Installer Project Today's lesson in political correctness: Go asphyxiate on a phallus -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
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 admin student/intern. about the only thing I could do to help is testing, and in this case even that is somewhat limited because I like gentoo because I don't have to install all the time. in fact the only reason I reinstalled this last time is because a windows machine with putty had been compromised. I feared my linux system might have been compromised too. so I waited and reinstalled on the next release. -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
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 Gianelloni [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 being unsupported means. Now, if you give me a patch for some bug that only affects i686, I'll apply it, provided it doesn't break = i686, but I simply don't have the time to support i686 with the release media anymore. By the way, the stage1 tarball and Minimal InstallCD are both built as i386 and will remain that way for the foreseeable future. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
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 going to be pushing out lots of new media for them. I have a set of legacy media that I plan on pushing out. It is all built with the 2006.1 snapshot. The media is an installcd, a stage set (stage1/2/3) for x86 compiled against the no-nptl profile, a stage set for i586 compiled against the 2006.1 profile, and a stage set for i586 compiled against the no-nptl profile. I don't plan on upgrading these until we switch over to the new multiple-inheritance profiles, at which point, I'll likely build a set of stages again for legacy hardware. The stages won't be supported, but they'll be available. That's exactly the sort of thing I had in mind. Not supported means lower priority or even roll your-own install media (or simply bootstrap Gentoo from some other distribution), and that it's considered acceptable to close bugs (at Gentoo package maintainer prerogative, of course) related to 586 or lower as WONTFIX, NOTABUG, or NEEDINFO (in this case, a patch, no patch, no fix, patch, happy to). As was pointed out by someone from embedded recently, due to its flexibility, people install Gentoo based systems on all sorts of stuff, as long as there's a GCC or the like and a kernel that supports it (not said but what I read into it). Older x86 would be no exception, and might in fact continue to be supported to some extent thru embedded (if they want to take it on, of course). In fact, from what I've read, pentium class x86 is quite a popular solution for certain embedded applications, so that would be a rather logical way to go. -- 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
[gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
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 bigger packages it was certainly workable. I did it because I didn't have a better machine, not to be able to say I did it. Well yes, except that I'd guess that was a bit more than a couple of years ago (I've been on Gentoo since 2004.0/2004.1, and IIRC it was gcc-3.3 then, so 2.95 would have been what, at least three years ago??). That means the archs are a third(-ish) of a decade further out of date than they were then. That's a significant amount of time in computer terms. Anyway, not supported doesn't mean can't do it. As I suggested in a different reply, it could and would likely still be done, just as Gentoo based systems are run on all sorts of stuff according to embedded, and in fact they may choose to continue some support, as I believe pentium-class embedded is quite popular. Not supported just means less frequent install media or bootstrapping from other distributions instead of Gentoo install media, and that bugs can be closed if desired and appropriate, based on that alone. -- 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
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
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 split x86 and i686 or some such. and applications that are unable to be supported on i686 be removed from the x86 tree. On 10/11/06, Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 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 bigger packages it was certainly workable. I did it because I didn't have a better machine, not to be able to say I did it. Well yes, except that I'd guess that was a bit more than a couple of years ago (I've been on Gentoo since 2004.0/2004.1, and IIRC it was gcc-3.3 then, so 2.95 would have been what, at least three years ago??). That means the archs are a third(-ish) of a decade further out of date than they were then. That's a significant amount of time in computer terms. Anyway, not supported doesn't mean can't do it. As I suggested in a different reply, it could and would likely still be done, just as Gentoo based systems are run on all sorts of stuff according to embedded, and in fact they may choose to continue some support, as I believe pentium-class embedded is quite popular. Not supported just means less frequent install media or bootstrapping from other distributions instead of Gentoo install media, and that bugs can be closed if desired and appropriate, based on that alone. -- 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 -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
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 being unsupported means. Now, if you give me a patch for some bug that only affects i686, I'll apply it, provided it doesn't break = i686, but I simply don't have the time to support i686 with the release media anymore. By the way, the stage1 tarball and Minimal InstallCD are both built as i386 and will remain that way for the foreseeable future. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
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 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
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
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 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. 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. -- Roy Marples [EMAIL PROTECTED] Gentoo/Linux Developer (baselayout, networking) -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
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 forget that you can easily create binary packages on a different machine and then share them across a network. At least that's what I'm doing here with my i486 machines :) -- Jens Pranaitis Oberhausen, Germany JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG Hash: FBEB CC96 1781 197C 539E 2DFA 3E2D 80E0 F4F7 45F4 -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
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 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
[gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
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. Good points both you and Jens. -- 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
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
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 which is a pentium II 400. Compiling glibc takes 3 hours here and while it may not be the Uhh, P2 is i686, which falls squarely into the realm of supported and reasonable :) -- Andrew Gaffneyhttp://dev.gentoo.org/~agaffney/ Gentoo Linux Developer Installer Project Today's lesson in political correctness: Go asphyxiate on a phallus -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
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 optimizations! ;-) 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 pgpTtgCoz30M4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
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 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. 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 bigger packages it was certainly workable. I did it because I didn't have a better machine, not to be able to say I did it. Paul -- gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
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 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. 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 going to be pushing out lots of new media for them. I have a set of legacy media that I plan on pushing out. It is all built with the 2006.1 snapshot. The media is an installcd, a stage set (stage1/2/3) for x86 compiled against the no-nptl profile, a stage set for i586 compiled against the 2006.1 profile, and a stage set for i586 compiled against the no-nptl profile. I don't plan on upgrading these until we switch over to the new multiple-inheritance profiles, at which point, I'll likely build a set of stages again for legacy hardware. The stages won't be supported, but they'll be available. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
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 snipping the rest since a Pentium 2 *is* i686 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. Nobody has said that. So long as glibc/gcc/etc still work on i586, we'll still provide the ability to use it on those machines. That doesn't mean we'll support it. It's like GCC 2.x, which is still in the tree. It's there. It's usable. It's totally unsupported. -- Chris Gianelloni Release Engineering Strategic Lead Alpha/AMD64/x86 Architecture Teams Games Developer/Council Member/Foundation Trustee Gentoo Foundation signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Missing: Universal-CD - Gentoo discriminates shell and networkless users
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 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. Nobody has said that. So long as glibc/gcc/etc still work on i586, we'll still provide the ability to use it on those machines. That doesn't mean we'll support it. It's like GCC 2.x, which is still in the tree. It's there. It's usable. It's totally unsupported. That's exactly what i can perfectly live with (i do even have a real i586 box that's not a pentium 2 ;-) ), thanks for clearing it up. 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 pgpzFHtMe4JH7.pgp Description: PGP signature
