Once upon a time, Bill Nottingham <notting(a)redhat.com> said:
Jon Ciesla (limb(a)jcomserv.net) said:
> Additionally, what will this do to RHEL? I can't imagine RHEL customers
> being too happy about this for RHEL7(?), and if i386 would still be in
> RHEL, it would worry me that it would only be a secondary arch in
> Fedora. . .
Not that it matters for Fedora, but I doubt many people are paying
$whatever_the_price_of_RHEL_is to run on a 6, 7, 10-year old machine. And
RHEL 5 only supports (base) i686 or greater already.
RHEL 5 doesn't require SSE2 and runs just fine on PIII and Athlon XP.
I think the big question is this: is this worth the effort? Almost all
the new systems should just be running x86_64 anyway. Why does x86 (32
bit) need to throw out working architectures? Adding them back as a
secondary arch just increases the workload (for somebody) that much
more.
--
Chris Adams <cmadams(a)hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.