i486 base architecture

[Jeff Johnson]

Peter Jones wrote:

>>>>yeah just make the i686 rpms be i386 ones with a Require: cpu(cmov)
>>>>   
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Ignoring the severe technical problems that it would create (It'd
>>>break _everything_ and be way too much work to implement), how about
>>>.ia32.rpm for everything that is .i386 now and use i?86.rpm for stuff
>>>that requires a specific cpu?
>>>      
>>>
>>No, Requires: cpu(cmov) breaks nothing, it's just another strcmp to rpm. 
>>Your expectations are what is confusing you. Yes, there would be a lot
>>of confusion for a short period of time, but as Arjan has pointed out, 
>>there are only a handful of packages that need to carry the dependency.
>>    
>>
>
>RPM isn't the only thing that touches files though.  Lots of stuff
>doesn't expect that it'll find 2 i386 packages, so it'll dump them to
>the same filename.  I know it sounds silly, but having the arch
>difference means it's easy to generate non-colliding filenames.
>
>That's not to say we shouldn't do the "Requires: cpu(cmov)" as _well_,
>since it could obviously be helpful in many situations.
>
>  
>
OK, to summarize:

    a) There's a whole lot of pain and not much gain messing with 
package file names (and file paths and scripts and ... )
    b) The dependency
            Requires: cpu(cmov)
         (or equivalent token) might (*will* imho) be useful identifying 
packages that actually use, say, cmov.
        (Note: there's more than cmov that needs marking, generalizing 
the cpu(...) name space is quite straightforward.)
    c) Users want a clear call on what package file name to install, as 
some *.i386.rpm will not run on arch i386, very confusing.
    d) linuxthreads needs to die! die! die! (but that's just me ;-)

Name your poison (if any) please.

73 de Jeff