Once upon a time, Bill Nottingham <notting@xxxxxxxxxx> said: > Jon Ciesla (limb@xxxxxxxxxxxx) said: > > Additionally, what will this do to RHEL? I can't imagine RHEL customers > > being too happy about this for RHEL7(?), and if i386 would still be in > > RHEL, it would worry me that it would only be a secondary arch in > > Fedora. . . > > Not that it matters for Fedora, but I doubt many people are paying > $whatever_the_price_of_RHEL_is to run on a 6, 7, 10-year old machine. And > RHEL 5 only supports (base) i686 or greater already. RHEL 5 doesn't require SSE2 and runs just fine on PIII and Athlon XP. I think the big question is this: is this worth the effort? Almost all the new systems should just be running x86_64 anyway. Why does x86 (32 bit) need to throw out working architectures? Adding them back as a secondary arch just increases the workload (for somebody) that much more. -- Chris Adams <cmadams@xxxxxxxxxx> Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
