----- Original Message ----- From: "David" <djdave@bigpond.net.au> To: "RedHat - Psyche" <psyche-list@redhat.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 22, 2002 10:36 PM Subject: Re: i386 package name > On Tue, 22 Oct 2002, Mike Chambers wrote: > > > > Except for those packages that are built against multiple architectures, why > > do we even need the i386 in the name anyway? > > > > Things like kernel, glibc and such I understand. But if packages are built > > to run on just about every machine, then why not just leave it off? > > They use "noarch" instead. Yes I know that. What I meant was, in reality, most packages (except like mentioned above) will run on just about any distro/system/architecture. So why even have i386 in the name, when it almost doesn't matter (again except things like kernel, glibc and such that architecture does matter)? Example.. Red Hat 8.0 contains sendmail, which is called sendmail-8.12.5-7.i386.rpm. Why can't it just be called sendmail-8.12.5-7.rpm? It's built to run on everything, so why the i386? Mike -- Psyche-list mailing list Psyche-list@redhat.com https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/psyche-list
