[KLUG Members] Re: My suggestion on organizing binary CDs for x86 chip-specific optimizations

[Bruce Smith]

> > Depends on how Redhat organizes their CDs.  If the 386/486 stuff is
> > completely isolated on their own CDs, which are not needed for any other
> > installs, then screw 'em, they're gone from BSware!  I'm not spending
> > any effort on CDs to support that old of hardware.  
> 
> But there is 386 stuff on the binary CD #2 that they _all_use_.  Again,
> I'm advocating _only_ 25-40% of packages be compiled "optimized."  Only
> CD #1 changes.  CD #2 doesn't.

All I'm saying is I don't care to support i386/i486 RPM's that are not
required by P-II/Athlon processors.  Sure I'll keep .i386 RPM's updated
where there are no optimized equivalents.  

BUT if I can nuke enough _duplicate_ i386/i486 RPM's, that have
optimized equivalents, AND I can make BSware one less CD that I have 
to maintain and burn, then kiss those RPM's goodbye.

Let's send any more replies to the advocacy list.  
I think we've beat this dead horse more than enough here.  :-)

> > Since we have no idea how Redhat might organize the CDs, not to mention
> > _IF_ they are going to do anything like this, we're just speculating.
> 
> No, I wasn't even "speculating."  I was _suggesting_.  We have several
> RedHat employees on the lists in Orlando and Jax.

I don't know of any RedHat employees on the list here, so I hope 
you're sending this stuff to the lists in Florida too.

--------------------------------------------
Bruce Smith                bruce@armintl.com
System Administrator / Network Administrator
Armstrong International, Inc.
Three Rivers, Michigan  49093  USA
http://www.armstrong-intl.com/
--------------------------------------------