<div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 16, 2009 at 3:17 PM, Tomas Mraz <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tmraz@redhat.com">tmraz@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Tue, 2009-06-16 at 11:42 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:<br>
</div><div class="im">> Chris Adams (<a href="mailto:cmadams@hiwaay.net">cmadams@hiwaay.net</a>) said:<br>
> > Removing support for still-functional hardware is a trademark of<br>
> > Microsoft, not Linux.<br>
> ><br>
> > I'd also argue that doing another full rebuild of the OS for a 1%<br>
> > performance gain on a single architecture is not a particularly<br>
> > production use of resources.<br>
><br>
> The 1% comes from i586 -> i686; SSE2 would be additional on top of<br>
> that. But given the vehement opposition, I can see dropping the SSE2<br>
> requirement. I'm still fairly convinced that going to i686 is the right<br>
> move - we really don't support i586 as a practical matter, and even<br>
> the Geode should still work with that. Furthermore, it's likely we'll<br>
> have a mass rebuild for LZMA support and/or debuginfo changes, so it's<br>
> no additional cost.<br>
<br>
</div>Great, i686 without SSE(2) seems OK to me. I even wonder why we did not<br>
go to that requirement in F11 already without the intermediate ~i586<br>
requirement.<br>
<div class="im"><br>
--<br>
Tomas Mraz<br>
No matter how far down the wrong road you've gone, turn back.<br>
Turkish proverb<br>
<br></div></blockquote></div><br><div>Because Pentium II and lower support i586 arch.</div>