"Jose M. Sanchez" wrote:
> Well since the release i686 RPM's are really compiled for i586, this is a
> rather academic discussion...
>
> Civilme states that there are NO i686 optimizations in the i686 RPM's...
> that they are really i586 optimized RPM's with i686 tagging because of the
> CPU in t
ere compiled on.
So there seems to be a lot of worry over nothing...
-JMS
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Declan Moriarty
Sent: Saturday, March 31, 2029 6:38 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [expert] Lost sight of point (w
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Rusty Carruth wrote:
I recently joined this list, not because I feel 'expert' but because I wanted
to know how the next release of Mandrake was shaping up, and this isn't a bad
place to find out. I am very glad I caught this thread. I'm currently running 2
AMD K6s and mandrak
Thanks.
-JMS
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Civileme
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 9:53 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [expert] Lost sight of point (was: WAIT!! STOP!!...)
Sorry, Civilme. I should have clarified a letter better with my
position. So far, I've had no problems with Cooker. The problem is
MandrakeFreq. By grabbing the "unsupported" directory without filtering
for i586 binaries, I'm prevented from updating my 7.2 installation to
the latest "mostly st
On Friday 30 March 2001 09:15, you wrote:
> The one thing that I'm noticing throughout this particular discussion is
> that everyone is blaming Mandrake and not looking at the fact that the
> K6-2 and K6-3 are actually i586 chips.
>
> How can Mandrake make their distribution recognize the K6 serie
Its ok to have the i686 rpms in the version, just don't (whoever)
remove the i586 ones, just add the i686 and leave
the i586 IN there so one can install it on either machine
and then everyone will be happy and the
version won't give you any poop about installing, it will
just install with no probl
Ken Thompson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > Well put Jose! I hope we see something like this come from Linus. Looking
> > down the "time horizon", this issue will probably dissapear in 8 to 12
> > months, but in the interim, it just makes good business sense not to raise
> > potential obsta
>
> Well put Jose! I hope we see something like this come from Linus. Looking
> down the "time horizon", this issue will probably dissapear in 8 to 12
> months, but in the interim, it just makes good business sense not to raise
> potential obstacles to the further acceptance of Linux.
I'm not so
The one thing that I'm noticing throughout this particular discussion is
that everyone is blaming Mandrake and not looking at the fact that the
K6-2 and K6-3 are actually i586 chips.
How can Mandrake make their distribution recognize the K6 series as i686
chips when they will just cough and sput
So does this mean that the next ver of Mandrake will
install on my AMDK6-400 without any trouble just like
7.2 ?
If not I will be VERY upset
On Friday 30 March 2001 12:51 am, so spoke David Rankin:
> "Jose M. Sanchez" wrote:
> > To begin with, this is not a Mandrake issue, it's a Linux issue
On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, David Rankin wrote:
Okej so LM8 will probobly be for i586. Thats fine for me. But how do I
recompile the hole distro to be i686 just for me. I mean if I start to
recompile LM8.src on LM8.i586 the hole distro will bi based on a i586
glibc and a i586 kernel... or do I miss som
"Jose M. Sanchez" wrote:
> To begin with, this is not a Mandrake issue, it's a Linux issue.
>
> The K6 can execute i686 code, just not optimally for the processor.
>
> With the Kernel it's another matter altogether...
>
> The MTRR register differences PREVENTs the i686 compiled kernel to operate
n Behalf Of Digital Wokan
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 1:34 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [expert] Lost sight of point (was: WAIT!! STOP!!...)
The biggest contributor to this problem are those submitting i686
packages to the "unsupported" packages. I once enjoyed updating to the
The biggest contributor to this problem are those submitting i686
packages to the "unsupported" packages. I once enjoyed updating to the
versions of programs ahead of Mandrake's official support of a package.
Now, I'm stuck with things like Mozilla 0.7 because the person who built
and submitted
Friday, March 30, 2001 1:20 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; mandrake
Subject: Re: [expert] Lost sight of point (was: WAIT!! STOP!!...)
"Jose M. Sanchez" wrote:
> Eh, except 7.2 installs just fine on a P-90 and K5.
>
> It's only the 486 and 386's who are left out.
>
"Jose M. Sanchez" wrote:
> Eh, except 7.2 installs just fine on a P-90 and K5.
>
> It's only the 486 and 386's who are left out.
>
> The i586 vs i686 worries are somewhat ungrounded.
>
> The i586 code works best with the K6, etc.
>
Jose, what will happen when the next full release of Mandrake ap
On Wednesday 28 March 2001 06:39 pm, you wrote:
> We've lost sight of one of my original points in similar discussions.
> If Mandrake is a Pentium optimized distro and NOT a P2+ optimized
> distro, then i686 RPM's HAVE NO PLACE in the distro. Period. They just
> shouldn't be there. Never mind u
Behalf Of Chubby Vic
Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2001 10:03 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [expert] Lost sight of point (was: WAIT!! STOP!!...)
HEAR!! HEAR!!!
Well spoken!
HEAR!! HEAR!!!
Well spoken!
On Wednesday 28 March 2001 07:39 pm, so spoke Digital Wokan:
> We've lost sight of one of my original points in similar discussions.
> If Mandrake is a Pentium optimized distro and NOT a P2+ optimized
> distro, then i686 RPM's HAVE NO PLACE in the distro. Period. T
We've lost sight of one of my original points in similar discussions.
If Mandrake is a Pentium optimized distro and NOT a P2+ optimized
distro, then i686 RPM's HAVE NO PLACE in the distro. Period. They just
shouldn't be there. Never mind us annoyed K6-2 users. What about the
kid on his dad's
21 matches
Mail list logo
