On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 04:11 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Monday 23 October 2006 03:38, Roy Bamford wrote:
> > I suspect the liveCD x86 kernel does not include FPU Emulation, in
> > which case we already require 386/387 as the minimum hardware level.
>
> ok ? i dont see how that is different
On Mon, 2006-10-23 at 08:38 +0100, Roy Bamford wrote:
> I suspect the liveCD x86 kernel does not include FPU Emulation, in
> which case we already require 386/387 as the minimum hardware level.
Actually, the minimal CD is built for i486 and the LiveCD is built for
i686. It says as much in the H
On Sun, 2006-10-22 at 17:42 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Sunday 22 October 2006 10:03, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > Dropping support for "i386" means not being able to use the "i386-*"
> > CHOST.
>
> you've hinted at the point of my e-mail ... moving forward, do we change our
> min supported
On Monday 23 October 2006 03:38, Roy Bamford wrote:
> I suspect the liveCD x86 kernel does not include FPU Emulation, in
> which case we already require 386/387 as the minimum hardware level.
ok ? i dont see how that is different from what is expected; we release i386
stages and our livecds supp
On 2006.10.22 22:42, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Sunday 22 October 2006 10:03, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Dropping support for "i386" means not being able to use the "i386-*"
> CHOST.
you've hinted at the point of my e-mail ... moving forward, do we
change our
min supported version to i486 ? Debian
On Sunday 22 October 2006 10:03, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Dropping support for "i386" means not being able to use the "i386-*"
> CHOST.
you've hinted at the point of my e-mail ... moving forward, do we change our
min supported version to i486 ? Debian did this quite some time ago ...
-mike
pg
On Sat, 2006-10-21 at 17:43 -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Saturday 21 October 2006 04:53, Roy Bamford wrote:
> > "cut off" as in nothing for i386 or leave i386 at glibc-2.5?
>
> i havent really decided ... i would like to settle on one version though for
> no-nptl/i386/glibc-compat20/etc...
On Sat, 2006-10-21 at 09:53 +0100, Roy Bamford wrote:
> On 2006.10.21 09:02, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > we're going to have to cut off support for i386 targets starting with
> > glibc-2.6 ... the upstream plans are to require TLS and i386 does not
> > have
> > the atomic instructions required to sup
On 2006.10.21 22:43, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Saturday 21 October 2006 04:53, Roy Bamford wrote:
> "cut off" as in nothing for i386 or leave i386 at glibc-2.5?
i havent really decided ... i would like to settle on one version
though for
no-nptl/i386/glibc-compat20/etc...
> What is the lowest IA
On Saturday 21 October 2006 04:53, Roy Bamford wrote:
> "cut off" as in nothing for i386 or leave i386 at glibc-2.5?
i havent really decided ... i would like to settle on one version though for
no-nptl/i386/glibc-compat20/etc...
> What is the lowest IA32 arch that will be supported ?
i486
-mike
On 2006.10.21 09:02, Mike Frysinger wrote:
we're going to have to cut off support for i386 targets starting with
glibc-2.6 ... the upstream plans are to require TLS and i386 does not
have
the atomic instructions required to support it
some other implications ... the glibc-compat20 people will al
we're going to have to cut off support for i386 targets starting with
glibc-2.6 ... the upstream plans are to require TLS and i386 does not have
the atomic instructions required to support it
some other implications ... the glibc-compat20 people will also be stuck with
glibc-2.5 (as that implie
12 matches
Mail list logo
