-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday 20 November 2002 9:50 am, Andrew Lau wrote: [snip] > Whenever someone rants about Gentoo's processor optimisations > and states some overinflated performance boost such as 10%-20%, all I > can do is make a a feeble rebuttal stating that it's more like (insert > low figure without much solid evidence - e.g.. 5%) with exceptions > such as glibc, X, multimedia applications, mozilla and OpenOffice. So > then they counter that it's still an increase. Ok, so what strengths > does Debian have to make a comeback with? Unlike Gentoo, Debian has > quality assurance and security teams. We have a strict policy and bug > resolution procedures. But they won't listen and still say Gentoo. > [snip] > I know that there's plenty of logistical/mirroring reasons as > to why we shouldn't duplicate a lot of the i386 tree by creating a > i686 tree, but could we seriously not consider a partial i686 > optimised tree as a compromise to attract some of the Gentoo users > back with our strengths in policy and testing? If not, then we need to > find something else to offer to attract the cutting-edge > enthusiast. The worst thing we could do is dismiss this > completely. Remember the days when Slackware and Yggdrasil were the > 'elitist's choice'? I certainly don't ever want to see Debian even > come close to sinking. [snip]
Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but my answer to this would be pentium-builder and apt-src or apt-build. Debian already has the infrastructure to be a source-based distribution, just that no-one uses it. - -- David Pashley [EMAIL PROTECTED] Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE94fSsYsCKa6wDNXYRAhn0AJ9zjbh74AO1vPiWhRGcreMgZQGrYQCcDby6 XdcbwAbIEmlXz1/1TvZRBmg= =83uO -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----