On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 12:40 PM, Christian Hesse <l...@eworm.de> wrote:
> We could just keep i686 as-is for maximum compatibility. Let's take a
> realistic look at the things: Most users run i686, so why bother and optimize
> i686 - just to save some CPU cycles for a minority?
> (I would even wast CPU cycle rebuilding a bunch of packages... pacman tells
> me the effected boxes have 399 packages installed.)

Except you could just happen to have it backwards. The few non-sse2 32
bit cpus that run arch could be served their own specialised
distribution, while a majority benefits from saving said few cpu


Reply via email to