Athlon Incompatible Packages

Warren Togami warren at togami.com
Tue Feb 24 04:55:02 UTC 2004


> Is there any reason why those packages restrict arch to 386 and are not
> compatible with athlon, or is that a bug? I'd like to be able to rebuild
> them. Would you like me to file a bugzilla on each one?
>
> acpid-1.0.2-6.src.rpm
> dietlibc-0.24-3.src.rpm
> epiphany-1.0.7-1.src.rpm
> fedora-release-1.90-11.src.rpm
> festival-1.4.2-20.src.rpm
> gaim-0.75-2.1.0.src.rpm
> grub-0.94-2.src.rpm
> libunwind-0.96-2.src.rpm
> ltrace-0.3.29-2.src.rpm
> memtest86-3.0-4.src.rpm
> mkbootdisk-1.5.1-1.src.rpm
> mozilla-1.6-1.src.rpm
> openCryptoki-2.1.3-3.src.rpm
> prelink-0.3.0-21.src.rpm
> redhat-lsb-1.3-1.src.rpm
> reiserfs-utils-3.6.11-2.src.rpm
> syslinux-2.08-2.src.rpm
> system-config-boot-0.2.1-1.1.src.rpm
> system-config-netboot-0.1.3-2.1.src.rpm

This has been repeated many times in the past.  The vast majority of
software have zero or negligible performance benefit from compiling to
athlon.  The compiler flags used to build all packages are already set for
i686 optimization.  Generally it is a very inefficient use of time to
rebuild packages for your specific arch as it takes far more time to do so
than any speed benefit you will gain.  This being said however, nothing
stops you from taking the SRPMS and doing what you wish to them.  You have
the freedom of choice with Open Source.

I would suggest against reporting this kind of "problem" to Bugzilla as
there are already thousands real issues there that are actual problems.

Warren





More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list