On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 09:54:08AM +0200, Maciej Żenczykowski wrote:
a) If (some) i386 packages are being built with -march=i486 then they (possibly, I do realize there's only like 2 or 3 new instructions) won't run on a 386 anyway, will they? so shouldn't they be called .i486.rpm?
This is highly, highly theoretical, since I don't think there's very many machines anywhere in the world with a i386 ISA and enough memory to boot CentOS.
c) If redhat isn't supporting anything below a 686 anyway then why don't they switch all .386 packages all the way up to 686? I know the performance gain isn't stellar, but if the packages are not designed for installation on anything < 686 then there's not much point in _not_ compiling for 686 - the binary packages will be the approx same size anyway and will require the same amount of CDspace/bandwidth.
Not worth the bother. In a few years, everything will be x86_64.