Pekka Pietikainen wrote:
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 03:19:33PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote:
On Wed, Dec 01, 2004 at 09:18:08AM -0500, Jeff Johnson wrote:Ignoring the severe technical problems that it would create (It'd
scriptsyeah just make the i686 rpms be i386 ones with a Require: cpu(cmov)
that have embedded i386/* and/or *.i386.rpm, to know 'i486' is gonna break
a whole lot of process.
break _everything_ and be way too much work to implement), how about
.ia32.rpm for everything that is .i386 now and use i?86.rpm for stuff
that requires a specific cpu?
No, Requires: cpu(cmov) breaks nothing, it's just another strcmp to rpm. Your expectations
are what is confusing you. Yes, there would be a lot of confusion for a short period of time,
but as Arjan has pointed out, there are only a handful of packages that need to carry the
dependency.
s/i386/ia32/ is marketing hype and fluff, much like s/x86_64/amd64/, vendors need to
signify Newer! better! Bestest! somehow.
Too much work for just ending some FAQ's for no technical benefit, certainly ;)
The real reason for doing
Requires: cpu(cmov)
is that it identifies the reason for the dependency quite clearly, narrowly, and objectively,
which will be easier to support, maintain, and adjusts expectations to what is needed, rather
than endless learned discussions of what an 'i686' actually means these days.
73 de Jeff
