On Mon, 13 Dec 2010, Martin Jungowski wrote: > It's not. It's just a general wondering as to why one would refer to > something as i386 when in reality it's i686 instead. You should ask Red Hat. You're wasting your time (and ours) asking here.
Tue Dec 14 03:03:08 UTC 2010
Charlie Brady <charlieb-centos-devel at budge.apana.org.au>
On Mon, 13 Dec 2010, Martin Jungowski wrote: > It's not. It's just a general wondering as to why one would refer to > something as i386 when in reality it's i686 instead. You should ask Red Hat. You're wasting your time (and ours) asking here.