> I'm just really, really weary and dubious about these architecture tweaks
> because they're so bleeping arbitrary.
I know, I don't particularly love it either, but RPM doesn't support defining
arbitrary architectures and architecture filter mechanisms. Each architecture
that people want to support needs to be added to RPM in a similar manner.
> Why do we need znver when we didn't need btver?
There was demand for an AMD Ryzen optimized variant because of the potential to
provide seriously interesting performance advantages, and so OpenMandriva built
one. We did consider doing [the same thing that Fedora proposed to
x86_64](https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/x86-64_micro-architecture_update),
but it was determined to be absolutely insane. At this point, this patch has
existed since early 2018 and we haven't encountered issues with the
architecture filtering in over a year.
The Ryzen variant allows for a lot of instructions to improve performance on
CPUs that we can guarantee all have them and allows us to retain compatibility
on baseline x86_64 by retaining the same instruction set base there.
> Just FWIW, I've grown particularly averse to architecture patches because in
> the last few years, every single one of them has been nothing but a source of
> controversy and grief.
I know, and most of them recently have been my fault. I've become particularly
averse to sending patches upstream related to architecture work in the distros
I maintain rpm because of this... 😢
But this one is important enough that I _really_ want this in mainline rpm,
since without it, it means regular rpm can't handle an entire distro set of
packages...
--
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/rpm-software-management/rpm/pull/1035#issuecomment-588230660
_______________________________________________
Rpm-maint mailing list
Rpm-maint@lists.rpm.org
http://lists.rpm.org/mailman/listinfo/rpm-maint
