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

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@transmeta.com>]

Alan Cox wrote:
> 
> > 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.

I think we might have to for the "requires", since by the time the app
runs it's really too late.  It's rather necessary to be able to tell
ahead of time.

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

Sounds like a good idea to me...

	-hpa

-- 
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!