Also, intel wasn't shipping x86_64 systems at the time, FC1 was pretty specifically AMD64, and there was a lot of weirdness back then.
On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 11:08 PM, Justin Forbes <jmfor...@linuxtx.org> wrote: > FC1 32bit was a little bit different. Technically x86_64 was a secondary > arch at the time, in fact the RH build system couldn't get everything > together and the ISOs were built on my home system. By FC2, this wasn't an > issue anymore. I would not be surprised if the archives were a bit off as > the official FC1 x86_64 was completed and pushed a bit after the official > FC1 i686 release. > > Justin > > On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Gary Gatling <gsgat...@ncsu.edu> wrote: > >> >> >> On Fri, Oct 23, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Adam Williamson < >> adamw...@fedoraproject.org> wrote: >> >>> I happened to notice last night that: >>> >>> >>> https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/archive/fedora/linux/core/1/x86_64/os/Fedora/RPMS/ >>> >>> seems very incomplete - it's like it's truncated, it has everything >>> alphabetically up to 'beecrypt' and nothing after. Compare to the i386 >>> dir, which looks full: >>> >>> >> >> I had problems with various things doing 64 bit installs from FC1-FC4 >> when I tried it a couple of years ago. But fedora 5 onward seemed to work >> ok for me. I have all the fedora releases in KVM vms in case I need to go >> back and look at stuff. I was able to do 32 bit installs of FC1-4. Its just >> the 64 bit parts that didn't seem to work for various reasons IIRC. From >> fedora 5 to present I was able to make 32 and 64 bit vms. But then again >> maybe I just wasn't trying hard enough with those very early releases. >> >> >> >> -- >> devel mailing list >> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org >> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel >> Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct >> > >
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
