On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:27:40PM +0100, Quentin Armitage wrote:
> Bill Nottingham wrote:
> > The proposal to have the baseline be i686 + SSE2 was shot down; bare
> > i686 was approved.
>
> Does this mean that an i686 kernel without PAE will still be built (my
> laptop processor does not h
Bill Nottingham wrote:
> The proposal to have the baseline be i686 + SSE2 was shot down; bare
> i686 was approved.
Does this mean that an i686 kernel without PAE will still be built (my
laptop processor does not have PAE so I am rather interested)? I note
that the latest build on Koji has not bui
Dave Jones (da...@redhat.com) said:
> Oh, I thought that proposal got shot down.
The proposal to have the baseline be i686 + SSE2 was shot down; bare
i686 was approved.
Bill
___
Fedora-kernel-list mailing list
Fedora-kernel-list@redhat.com
https://www
On Mon, Jul 20, 2009 at 10:12:06AM -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote:
> Dave Jones (da...@redhat.com) said:
> > > +# We only build -PAE on 686.
> > > %ifarch i686
> > > -%define with_up 0
> > > %define with_pae 1
> > > %else
> > > %define with_pae 0
> >
> > The naming of 'with_up'
Dave Jones (da...@redhat.com) said:
> > +# We only build -PAE on 686.
> > %ifarch i686
> > -%define with_up 0
> > %define with_pae 1
> > %else
> > %define with_pae 0
>
> The naming of 'with_up' is subtle here. With this change,
> we'll try building a '686' kernel as well as a '686-PAE
