Gregory Seidman wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 04:06:10PM +0100, Richard Thompson wrote:
>> I was wondering why debian doesn't have a port of packages optimised for
>> i686, I realise they have support for i386, which obviously incudes
>> everything from an intel 386 to the latest and greatest in
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 04:06:10PM +0100, Richard Thompson wrote:
> I was wondering why debian doesn't have a port of packages optimised for
> i686, I realise they have support for i386, which obviously incudes
> everything from an intel 386 to the latest and greatest intel and amd
> processors (ru
On Tue, Aug 28, 2007 at 08:58:56PM +0100, Richard Thompson wrote:
> > I'm no expert, but I believe the thinking is that most of the processor
> > dependent code is in libc6, for which we do have the -i686 version, and
> > the kernel, which also comes in -686 flavors.
> >
> > Celejar
> Yes, I expec
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 21:53:22 +0100 (BST)
"Richard Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snipped discussion about the benefit of 686 optimization of typical
applications]
> Userspace services daemons etc, like any program will
perform better on an
> i686 processor if they are i686 optimised :-)
B
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 20:58:56 +0100 (BST)
"Richard Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: i686 Port
> From:"Richard Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
Original Message
Subject: Re: i686 Port
From:"Richard Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date:Tue, August 28, 2007 8:54 pm
To: "Celej
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:06:10 +0100 (BST)
"Richard Thompson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I was wondering why debian doesn't have a port of packages optimised for
> i686, I realise they have support for i386, which obviously incudes
> everything from an intel 386 to the latest and greatest intel an
7 matches
Mail list logo
