On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 07:26:11AM +0000, Luciano Miguel Ferreira Rocha wrote: > On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 07:24:19AM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > > On Mon, Feb 07, 2005 at 12:16:58AM +0000, Tim Waugh wrote: > > > On Sun, Feb 06, 2005 at 10:21:08AM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > > this is already wrong. The "athlon" hack is *WRONG*. Athlon is a > > > > marketing name, it could just as well be a duron or a sempron. > > > > It was a mistake to put the athlon hack in uname (but hindsight is > > > > easy); it's imo very wrong to repeat that mistake. > > > > > > Should I take it out? > > > > hard dilemma in that it risks breaking existing stuff.... but if it wasn't > > for that I'd say yes. Would after removing athlon from uname rpm still detect "athlon" as its target architecture? FWIW the athlon.rpm naming scheme is then just as broken (athlon.rpm work on duron, too), so enforcing this strict policy would color off rpm packages as well (resulting to k8.rpm?) > It's not as if that would be the first time that stuff is broken by > depending on a bug. > > If the hack is incorrect, then let it be taken out and broken > applications corrected. IMHO, that should not happen for FC4. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgp0B37xLCeeC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
