Re: RFC: Policy for arch specs
On 1 Jun 1997, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> email@example.com (Galen Hazelwood) wrote on 31.05.97 in <3390AE45.66062BB5@micron.net>:
> > Christian Schwarz wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 29 May 1997, Galen Hazelwood wrote:
> > > > (Don't ask me what the historical reasons are, though. I might start to
> > > > whimper...)
> > >
> > > Sorry, but I couldn't resist :-) What are the reasons?
> > I don't know. That's why I whimper...
> > > If we make this policy, we should have some real arguments for it! Since
> > > we use "i386" in all our file names and since Debian actually runs on
> > > 386SX and higher I don't see why we should label this "i486".
> > Perhaps. Anybody have any serious arguments? I think the reason we
> > configure gcc as i486 is so it automatically optimizes for the 486; it's
> > a good middle ground.
> That may be the reason that Linux gcc is usually configured that way.
> The reason Debian does it, AFAIR, is simply to be compatible with most of
> the Linux world.
Where is the arch specification string used, i.e. what will break if we
change it to be "i386-linux" on intel systems?
-- _,, Christian Schwarz
/ o \__ firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com,
! ___; firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
\\\______/ ! PGP-fp: 8F 61 EB 6D CF 23 CA D7 34 05 14 5C C8 DC 22 BA
\ / http://fatman.mathematik.tu-muenchen.de/~schwarz/
"DIE ENTE BLEIBT DRAUSSEN!"
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .