On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Christian Hesse <list@xxxxxxxx> 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 rebuilding a bunch of packages... pacman tells > me the effected boxes have 399 packages installed.) Except you could just happen to have it backwards. The few non-sse2 32 bit cpus that run arch could be served their own specialised distribution, while a majority benefits from saving said few cpu cycles. cheers! mar77i
