[Techtalk] i386 or i686?
techchiq at hotpop.com
Thu Oct 30 14:55:04 EST 2003
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003 08:08:38 -0800 (PST), Jeannette <jcv at hise.org> wrote:
> I have to point out an exception to this rule, though. If you are talking
> about binaries that link to the kernel, e.g., device drivers, you need to
> exactly match the kernel you have installed, or the symbol table entries
> won't match up and you will get unresolved symbol errors.
> We get tech support calls all the time at work from people who decided to
> use the i386 binary on their PIV or Athlon, because "I thought i386
> worked with everything".
I'm glad you pointed that out because I'm one of those that thought the
same thing (until now :) It makes scense too, when I think about it. I
think in those case, wouldn't it be best to just grab the sources and
compile it on the target system? I'm starting to think now that maybe
source code versions have advantages over RPMs. RPMs might be nice for
However, I noticed that many of the RPMs that come with my distro (in fact
I think all of them, not sure) are i386. So in effect, it would make it an
i386 system. Oddly, I have only a /lib/i686 directory and not any
/lib/i386 directory. This kinda confuses me. :)
Using M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
More information about the Techtalk