On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 9:54 PM, Daniel Micay via arch-dev-public
wrote:
> On Wed, 2016-09-28 at 21:12 +0200, Bartłomiej Piotrowski wrote:
> ... Can [you] give people
> enough time to work out a way of doing automated builds, even official
> ones if there are developers / trusted users interested
On Sat, 24 Sep 2016 22:24:32 +0200
Ralf Mardorf wrote:
> ...IMO we could assume that
> FreeBSD users are a similar target group as Arch users. If so, then it
> could cause a lot of pain for Arch users and maintainers, too.
>
> Regards,
> Ralf
I wouldn't assume that. BSDs in general are very con
On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 20:03:52 +0200, Sebastiaan Lokhorst wrote:
>You cannot seriously say "optimised for modern processors" and "i686"
>in the same sentence.
FWIW
https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/2016-September/273691.html
;)
I'm a x86_64 user, so I don't care about it regar
2016-09-19 12:22 GMT+02:00 Florian Pritz via arch-dev-public <
arch-dev-pub...@archlinux.org>:
>
> I'm not really sure why we want to even invest time in making all i686
> packages use more features. Most of our users run x86_64 already so maybe
> we
> should think about increasing feature support
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Christian Hesse wrote:
> We could just keep i686 as-is for maximum compatibility. Let's take a
> realistic look at the things: Most users run i686, so why bother and optimize
> i686 - just to save some CPU cycles for a minority?
> (I would even wast CPU cycle rebu
5 matches
Mail list logo
