Actually ... I don't personally see it as that at all. We still want to minimize changes and i think Alan's comments are correct.

Right, and we may do it, however if we do it, it will be because there is a growing market and it has no impact on the i686 distro.

And the act of modifying anaconda in that way DOES go against what CentOS main goal is (a perfect rebuild of sources).

That doesn't mean we won't do it ... it just means we need a very good reason to do it :D

I also did not read it like that. All those things are NOT changing anything in the main distro, but are adding on to it.

But that might be the argument. For example, we are probably not going to add Gnome 2.22 into centos-5 for precisely that reason :D

Right ... so all in all, I though Alan's comments were positive and not negative.

Either way though, the real issue is that we might provide i586 support as an addon feature if it looks like i586 is required for new projects .. but the support may be broken at times since upstream does not ensure their source compiles with that "--target i586" switch.

Thanks for seeing it as I wrote it, Johnny. I read Karanbir's reply once, then twice, then scratched my head, then read it a third time. At that point I had to get up from my monitor and go do something - anything that could be done on "auto-pilot" - elsewhere.

What I wrote was (a) to give support to Manuel's proposal for C5 support on the i586 (b) but to minimise the ever-increasing pressure on the core developers.

I do what very little I am able to do, for and in the spirit of the CentOS Community. Until such time as it is made clear to me that I am not wanted, I will continue in that fashion. I've lived for over half a century and have a broad back.

Perhaps Karanbir is just having a bad day and is feeling particularly "spiky".

Alan.