@pmatilai The addition of this new architecture name is because we need a way
to declare incompatibility at the RPM level for CPUs that don't support it.
This is pretty much the only way we can do it. When this was first being worked
on, nobody seemed to think there was any better way to do this then, either. 😞
As for the assembler code.... Changing that to C would likely require
introducing a library dependency to shift the assembler to something out of our
purview. That's not to say that isn't necessarily a bad idea, but I don't have
a good idea of what to pick and how it would work in RPM...
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1035#issuecomment-581360784
_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
