On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 05/11/2009 03:55 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: >> On Mon, 2009-05-11 at 14:51 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: >> >>> I would really like to see a proliferation of secondary arches in >>> Fedora, but I don't think 'workstation' is a viable usage model for >>> them to get started. Most will have to focus on the type of hardware >>> that actually sells for that arch, and yes I realize that can be at >>> odds with some of the directions Fedora is going. >> >> Semi-sidetrack here: Ubuntu has a secondary 'architecture' called LPIA >> which is, in fact, just an alternative set of compiler optimizations >> which they claim results in better code for 'netbook >> systems' (presumably meaning 'Atom CPUs'). Would that be something we >> could look into, or not interesting? > > Sure, I see no reason why someone couldn't take that on as a "secondary > arch". It would need a new arch identifier target for rpm to prevent > namespace collisions. > x86_32? x86_green? It would be interesting to see what that would break in RPM ;). -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- BSD/GNU/Linux How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice" -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
