On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 09:54:08AM +0200, Maciej ?enczykowski wrote:
> a) If (some) i386 packages are being built with -march=i486 then they
> (possibly, I do realize there's only like 2 or 3 new instructions) won't
> run on a 386 anyway, will they? so shouldn't they be called .i486.rpm?
This is highly, highly theoretical, since I don't think there's very many
machines anywhere in the world with a i386 ISA and enough memory to boot
CentOS.
> c) If redhat isn't supporting anything below a 686 anyway then why don't
> they switch all .386 packages all the way up to 686? I know the
> performance gain isn't stellar, but if the packages are not designed for
> installation on anything < 686 then there's not much point in _not_
> compiling for 686 - the binary packages will be the approx same size
> anyway and will require the same amount of CDspace/bandwidth.
Not worth the bother. In a few years, everything will be x86_64.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm@xxxxxxxxxx <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
Current office temperature: 78 degrees Fahrenheit.
