[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: architecture names (i386-linux, etc.)



> Quite a while back, we agreed that applications should be built for a 386
> for portability. If an application used a feature of a more recent processor,
> then it was responsible for checking and doing something appropriate if the
> test failed.

In which case I don't think we need to worry about i386/i586/athlon/transmeta
etc.

Perhaps we should acquire an "optimised for:" and "cpu required:" in RPM or
the tool the lsb chooses ?


Reply to: