Am Samstag, den 05.02.2005, 15:14 +0100 schrieb Arjan van de Ven: > On Sat, Feb 05, 2005 at 02:55:18PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > Am Samstag, den 05.02.2005, 14:22 +0100 schrieb Arjan van de Ven: > > > > - Special case for ia32e in uname (bug #145266). > > > > > > this is wrong. Very wrong. > > > > While at it and just out of curiosity -- why to we have both ia32e and > > x86_64 as possible archs in bugzilla.redhat.com? > > because for RHEL3 we had to do a second kernel rpm because we couldn't > retrofit em64t support into the kernel within the compability and stability > contraints rhel3 updates have. > > > I'm just wondering if that is (still?) needed... And yes, I know there > > not for anything not RHEL3. I don't know bugzilla internals that much -- should it be possible to limit that arch to the RHEL component? If someones says "yes" I'm going to to open a bugzilla report against bugzilla ;-) > Note that ia32e is doubly wrong; Intel calls their cpu technology EM64T not > ia32e. Before my first post I rechecked it: Google finds 27 hits on intel.com for "ia32"e ;-) But of course EM64T is correct. -- Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
