On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 at 23:13, Evangelos Foutras via arch-dev-public <arch-dev-public@lists.archlinux.org> wrote: > > On Wed, 3 Mar 2021 at 23:34, Allan McRae via arch-dev-public > <arch-dev-public@lists.archlinux.org> wrote: > > Options realistically are: > > > > 1) bump the baseline > > 2) provide a second more optimized port. > > 3) defer this until better tooling is available to implement (2) > > Since the RFC is about bumping -march to x86_64-v2, it either gets > accepted and my desktop computer can no longer run Arch, or the RFC > gets rejected and another approach is proposed in the future. > Discussing alternative implementations seems out of scope. > > For what is worth, you mentioned RHEL 9 adopting x86_64-v2 but I'm not > sure it translates well to Arch; companies have shorter replacement > timelines for servers and workstations so it makes sense for upcoming > RHEL releases to target newer hardware. Furthermore, older machines > can stay with RHEL 8 until 2029; Arch doesn't have a fallback like > that.
I'll also back 3). I think having a general mechanism for this and not just bumping baseline and then being able to ship baseline, -v2, -v3, -v4 with that hypothetical general mechanism would make more sense and be less of a hack. Otherwise, we're just going to have the same conversation again down the road.
