On Wednesday 16 June 2004 07:49 am, Brian Elliott Finley wrote:
> So it looks like our options are: > a) keep it as i386boot, and explain in the description (rpm -qi) that the > i386 refers to the kernel name for that architecture, as opposed to > it's hardware optimization, and that it was built for 486 and higher > level systems. > b) change it to i486boot, and all the ripple effect in the code and > path naming that that would imply. > c) change it to ia32boot? still explain in description that it's for > 486 and higher > > I'm kinda leaning towards a). I'm leaning towards a short-term and b longer term. I don't think b has any effect on the boot image build, only upon the RPM name. That only applies to the boot rpm though. There is code in the mkautoinstall* scripts that does if($arch !~ /^(i386|ia64)$/). I'm thinking that constraint needs to go away. That is, this code will have to be expanded to include the 64-bit intel/amd chips in the near future anyway, and it's not clear why we should even care about the directory name (e.g. there's nothing to prevent someone from plonking any kernel they want in the i386 directory and circumventing the architecture check anyway, and we've been doing that by plonking an i586 kernel in the i386 directory). That's probably something for a future release though (4.x?). ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by The 2004 JavaOne(SM) Conference Learn from the experts at JavaOne(SM), Sun's Worldwide Java Developer Conference, June 28 - July 1 at the Moscone Center in San Francisco, CA REGISTER AND SAVE! http://java.sun.com/javaone/sf Priority Code NWMGYKND _______________________________________________ Sisuite-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/sisuite-devel
