On Jan 10, 2011, at 11:25 AM, Santi Saez wrote:
> El 09/01/2011 16:31, Robert Heller escribió:
>
>> The kernel itself is optimized for the i686 processor. It is possible
>> to custom build a kernel for the i586, i486, or i386 if you really have
>> a processor that old.
>
> What is the sense of
At Mon, 10 Jan 2011 18:25:22 +0100 CentOS mailing list
wrote:
>
> El 09/01/2011 16:31, Robert Heller escribió:
>
> > The kernel itself is optimized for the i686 processor. It is possible
> > to custom build a kernel for the i586, i486, or i386 if you really have
> > a processor that old.
>
El 09/01/2011 16:31, Robert Heller escribió:
> The kernel itself is optimized for the i686 processor. It is possible
> to custom build a kernel for the i586, i486, or i386 if you really have
> a processor that old.
What is the sense of optimize a kernel for i686 and then distribute most
of pack
>> Don't forget AMD's K6 processors -- these are also i586 processors.
>
> I have an AMD K6 that won't boot Fedora 7 (or later) due to missing
> some bit of architecture (I forget specifics, sorry...). So I suspect
> it's not truly an i586 processor? (fwiw, It did boot and install Linux
> Mint 9,
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Cia Watson wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Jan 2011 14:54:21 -0500
> Robert Heller wrote:
>
>> At Sun, 09 Jan 2011 11:19:22 -0800 CentOS mailing list
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > On 01/09/11 11:09 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>> > > And highly, highly recommended to use a kernel opt
On Sun, 9 Jan 2011 14:54:21 -0500
Robert Heller wrote:
> At Sun, 09 Jan 2011 11:19:22 -0800 CentOS mailing list
> wrote:
>
> >
> > On 01/09/11 11:09 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> > > And highly, highly recommended to use a kernel optimized for i686
> > > if that's your real architecture: ther
On Jan 9, 2011, at 10:31 AM, Robert Heller wrote:
> At Sun, 09 Jan 2011 09:31:19 -0500 CentOS mailing list
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Hi List,
>> just doing my weekly yum update and noticed that the kernel is
>> designated .i686 but the headers package is .i386??
>> surely the headers should mat
On 01/09/2011 03:31 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
> The headers package contains no compiled code -- it only contains
> source code (.h files). As such it is processor netural. It really
> could be '.noarch', but the version of rpmbuild shipped with CentOS 5.5
> does not allow the creation of .noarch
At Sun, 09 Jan 2011 11:19:22 -0800 CentOS mailing list
wrote:
>
> On 01/09/11 11:09 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> > And highly, highly recommended to use a kernel optimized for i686 if
> > that's your real architecture: there's a big performance difference.
>
> since the last mainstream i586
On 01/09/11 11:09 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> And highly, highly recommended to use a kernel optimized for i686 if
> that's your real architecture: there's a big performance difference.
since the last mainstream i586 CPU was the original Pentium (60-133Mhz)
and Pentium/MMX (up to 200Mhz?), and
On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Robert Heller wrote:
> At Sun, 09 Jan 2011 09:31:19 -0500 CentOS mailing list
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Hi List,
>> just doing my weekly yum update and noticed that the kernel is
>> designated .i686 but the headers package is .i386??
>> surely the headers should match
At Sun, 09 Jan 2011 09:31:19 -0500 CentOS mailing list
wrote:
>
>
> Hi List,
> just doing my weekly yum update and noticed that the kernel is
> designated .i686 but the headers package is .i386??
> surely the headers should match the kernel geometry that it was compiled
> for?
> confused.
T
Hi List,
just doing my weekly yum update and noticed that the kernel is
designated .i686 but the headers package is .i386??
surely the headers should match the kernel geometry that it was compiled
for?
confused.
TIA
Rob
<>___
CentOS mailing list
CentO
13 matches
Mail list logo
