Re: [gentoo-user] Package Specific Optimizations?
> This brings up 1 more question (you're probably not going to like)...if there's > a custom patch (possibly private - say for preferred keybindings or something) > I'd like to apply to a package before compiling...is this possible as well? I'm not sure about this, but if you're looking for a one-shot quick-and-dirty solution, I guess you could try a variation on: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/faq.xml#doc_chap4_sect9 Matthieu -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Package Specific Optimizations?
> It will not be extended for CFLAGS. It would create a maintenance > nightmare which we can't support, that's why the proposal was turned > down. Where support fails a feature disclaimer prevails :- ) Anyone sending unwanted advertising e-mail to this address will be charged $25 for network traffic and computing time. By extracting my address from this message or its header, you agree to these terms. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Package Specific Optimizations?
begin quote
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:54:34 -0800 (PST)
"POLAX" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I suppose then there may be interest in any Flag/Package combinations
> I find to be not workable. Perhaps on gentoo-dev?
Not really. We can't go around and babysit, and the overhead is too
great IMO. We fend off the most common ones, but ignore the rest.
>
> This brings up 1 more question (you're probably not going to
> like)...if there's a custom patch (possibly private - say for
> preferred keybindings or something) I'd like to apply to a package
> before compiling...is this possible as well?
"edit the build" is the only way. Adding the patch in ${FILESDIR} and
adding a patch< ${FILESDIR}/kill-the-popups.diff in src_unpack should
work.
i'd recommend doing a local overlay of said ebuild first (check
etc/make.conf ) since it will be wiped in the next sync if you don't.
>
>
> What other OS than Linux would linuxfromscratch be? I DO admit that I
> did minimum testing on this...so I probably shouldn't have said
> "stable", more like "it booted".
"ptah"Your statement wasn't particularly clear wether you performed
said testing in LFS or Gentoo. now you've clarified, but as you state
you didn't check functionality, and certainly didn't check
five-dependencies down for "proper functionality" . (libxml2 +
scrollkeeper for example ;)
//Spider
btw.. your mailer is broken.
--
begin .signature
This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature!
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end
pgp0.pgp
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Package Specific Optimizations?
> This was for two different occasions, just that my linebreak > dissapeared: > > package specific optimizations aren't handled unless you do it on > commandline. > > some packages are known and documented to break with certain flags, and > if those flags are in the common area (-O3 comes to mind) they are > filtered out and removed. Some packages don't even like -march= but > will sod off and generate segfaults the next package thats built (cause > its used in the buildprocess) . We fix that by overriding CFLAGS for > those specific cases. (sandbox is a good example. it breaks using O>1) Ahhh...so you DO care ;- ) I suppose then there may be interest in any Flag/Package combinations I find to be not workable. Perhaps on gentoo-dev? > > This Larry the Cow likes insane CFLAGS optimizations! > > Yes, go play with them, but what we are protecting here isn't users who > compete by the size of their CFLAGS, but ourselves from packages that > don't build with either the default (-O2 -march=) or"recommended" (not > by me) -O3 . If I didn't want performance I would've walked right past gentoo and complained that the install process wasn't "pretty enough" or "idiot proof". I do like (really like) what we have here with gentoo...I'm just looking for a _LITTLE_ more control over it. This brings up 1 more question (you're probably not going to like)...if there's a custom patch (possibly private - say for preferred keybindings or something) I'd like to apply to a package before compiling...is this possible as well? > > This is sort of what the LFS (linuxfromscratch.org) boys told > > me...well no, their motto is FBBG (Follow Book, Book Good). > > > > (since you didn't tell me what measure of "stable" was, nor what > os said system was for I'm blatantly ignoring this) What other OS than Linux would linuxfromscratch be? I DO admit that I did minimum testing on this...so I probably shouldn't have said "stable", more like "it booted". > > I really can't think of a package that would benfit overall system > > performance from optimization more than glibc - it's used by > > EVERYTHING! > > Ahh, so thats why theres processor specific assembler all over glibc. > Glad to know. It's not really "all over" glibc. Most (if not all) is contained in glibc-version/sysdeps (also glibc-version/linuxthreads/sysdeps) and is included as needed based on your HOST setting. You may have looked further into this than I but I'm pretty sure I didn't imagine it compiling and working for me (though it hasn't been tested thoroughly). -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Package Specific Optimizations?
On 11/26/03 Patrick Börjesson wrote: > > > Looking for something like this? > > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13616 > > > > Close...would like to control CFLAGS as well - this would make me > > happy as a clam. (And in my opinion make distros like LFS nothing > > more than a "learning experience") > > When having the functionality of package specific USE-flags, I'm > hoping it wouldn't be such a hassle to extend it to cover package > specific CFLAGS as well... I think someone suggested it in one of the > comments to the bug. Go have a look. It will not be extended for CFLAGS. It would create a maintenance nightmare which we can't support, that's why the proposal was turned down. Marius -- Public Key at http://www.genone.de/info/gpg-key.pub In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, 'Let there be Light.' And there was still nothing, but you could see a bit better. pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Package Specific Optimizations?
> > Looking for something like this? > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13616 > > Close...would like to control CFLAGS as well - this would make me > happy as a clam. (And in my opinion make distros like LFS nothing > more than a "learning experience") When having the functionality of package specific USE-flags, I'm hoping it wouldn't be such a hassle to extend it to cover package specific CFLAGS as well... I think someone suggested it in one of the comments to the bug. Go have a look. Patrick Börjesson -- Public key ID: 4C5AB0BF Public key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Package Specific Optimizations?
begin quote On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 08:39:32 -0800 (PST) "POLAX" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Easy. they aren't. Unless you do it in the commandline, portage > > doesn't > > do it. Some packages wipe all CFLAGS or ignore them completely > > because > > they break with all except -O2 , but we try to do as little as > > possible. > > Larry the Cow would not be impressed...he was told gentoo gave him > "control over the optimization settings and build-time functionality > that HE wanted, rather than what some distro creator thought would be > best for him" :- ( This was for two different occasions, just that my linebreak dissapeared: package specific optimizations aren't handled unless you do it on commandline. some packages are known and documented to break with certain flags, and if those flags are in the common area (-O3 comes to mind) they are filtered out and removed. Some packages don't even like -march= but will sod off and generate segfaults the next package thats built (cause its used in the buildprocess) . We fix that by overriding CFLAGS for those specific cases. (sandbox is a good example. it breaks using O>1) > This Larry the Cow likes insane CFLAGS optimizations! Yes, go play with them, but what we are protecting here isn't users who compete by the size of their CFLAGS, but ourselves from packages that don't build with either the default (-O2 -march=) or"recommended" (not by me) -O3 . > This is sort of what the LFS (linuxfromscratch.org) boys told > me...well no, their motto is FBBG (Follow Book, Book Good). > (since you didn't tell me what measure of "stable" was, nor what os said system was for I'm blatantly ignoring this) > I really can't think of a package that would benfit overall system > performance from optimization more than glibc - it's used by > EVERYTHING! Ahh, so thats why theres processor specific assembler all over glibc. Glad to know. //Spider -- begin .signature This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature! See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. end pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Package Specific Optimizations?
> Looking for something like this? > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13616 Close...would like to control CFLAGS as well - this would make me happy as a clam. (And in my opinion make distros like LFS nothing more than a "learning experience") Anyone sending unwanted advertising e-mail to this address will be charged $25 for network traffic and computing time. By extracting my address from this message or its header, you agree to these terms. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Package Specific Optimizations?
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:44:01 +0100, Spider wrote: > > begin quote > On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:19:09 -0800 (PST) > "POLAX" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > How are package optimizations specific to a particular package > > specified? > > > Easy. they aren't. Unless you do it in the commandline, portage doesn't > do it. Some packages wipe all CFLAGS or ignore them completely because > they break with all except -O2 , but we try to do as little as possible. Larry the Cow would not be impressed...he was told gentoo gave him "control over the optimization settings and build-time functionality that HE wanted, rather than what some distro creator thought would be best for him" :- ( This Larry the Cow likes insane CFLAGS optimizations! This is sort of what the LFS (linuxfromscratch.org) boys told me...well no, their motto is FBBG (Follow Book, Book Good). I'm not one to blindly follow orders and I _DID_ manage to compile a stable toolchain (binutils+gcc+glibc) with some pretty good optimization (-march=pentium3 -O3 -mmmx -msse -mfpmath=sse). Perhaps the days of these being unstable when optimized are over and optimizing them is worth looking at again? I really can't think of a package that would benfit overall system performance from optimization more than glibc - it's used by EVERYTHING! > > There are some package/flag combinations that don't work > > (-mno-push-args-maccumulate-outgoing-args -mno-align-stringops for > > reiserfstools). > > > > Have these all been tested and accounted for? > > This made me laugh, which is quite strange cause I'm at home with severe > headache and fever. > > NO. We -cannot- test the compile flags. In fact most developers simply > invalidate bugs from people with CFLAGS above the normal. Won't Even > Touch It until you rebuild your whole dependency-tree with less CFLAGS. > > > > If not how can I specify different flags for different packages? > > > Commandline. > CFLAGS="-march=i386 -mcpu=i686 -O2 -pipe" emerge reiserfstools No sweat...as long as I can control the flags myself I can troubleshoot individual packages myself no problem - provided portage will recognize the install once I have a successful build. > > > Simple: >by adding insane CFLAGS you shoot yourself into nomansland, and won't >get support. That's what I'm told...maybe one day I'll let you see all the bullet holes I've endured for successful builds :- ) -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Package Specific Optimizations?
Patrick Börjesson wrote: this all makes some sense - of course ;), but - me too - wondered about, how to build (for instance) gimp with tiff support but imagick without(I know, this is a stupid example.), without shooting myself in the foot during the next ``emerge -u world''. Maybe it would be good, to have a possibility of customizing the ebuilds. Looking for something like this? http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13616 I heard this will be included in 2.0.50. -- Andrew Gaffney -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Package Specific Optimizations?
On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 13:06, Patrick Börjesson wrote: > > this all makes some sense - of course ;), but - me too - wondered > > about, how to build (for instance) gimp with tiff support but imagick > > without(I know, this is a stupid example.), without shooting myself in > > the foot during the next ``emerge -u world''. > > > > Maybe it would be good, to have a possibility of customizing the > > ebuilds. > > Looking for something like this? > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13616 > > Patrick Börjesson That's exactly what I ment :oD -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Package Specific Optimizations?
> this all makes some sense - of course ;), but - me too - wondered > about, how to build (for instance) gimp with tiff support but imagick > without(I know, this is a stupid example.), without shooting myself in > the foot during the next ``emerge -u world''. > > Maybe it would be good, to have a possibility of customizing the > ebuilds. Looking for something like this? http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13616 Patrick Börjesson -- Public key ID: 4C5AB0BF Public key available at wwwkeys.pgp.net pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Package Specific Optimizations?
Hi Spider, this all makes some sense - of course ;), but - me too - wondered about, how to build (for instance) gimp with tiff support but imagick without (I know, this is a stupid example.), without shooting myself in the foot during the next ``emerge -u world''. Maybe it would be good, to have a possibility of customizing the ebuilds. Just a thought Frank On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 11:44, Spider wrote: > begin quote > On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:19:09 -0800 (PST) > "POLAX" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > How are package optimizations specific to a particular package > > specified? > > > Easy. they aren't. Unless you do it in the commandline, portage doesn't > do it. Some packages wipe all CFLAGS or ignore them completely because > they break with all except -O2 , but we try to do as little as possible. > > > > There are some package/flag combinations that don't work > > (-mno-push-args-maccumulate-outgoing-args -mno-align-stringops for > > reiserfstools). > > > > Have these all been tested and accounted for? > > This made me laugh, which is quite strange cause I'm at home with severe > headache and fever. > > NO. We -cannot- test the compile flags. In fact most developers simply > invalidate bugs from people with CFLAGS above the normal. Won't Even > Touch It until you rebuild your whole dependency-tree with less CFLAGS. > > > > If not how can I specify different flags for different packages? > > > Commandline. > CFLAGS="-march=i386 -mcpu=i686 -O2 -pipe" emerge reiserfstools > > > Simple: >by adding insane CFLAGS you shoot yourself into nomansland, and won't >get support. > > //Spider -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Package Specific Optimizations?
begin quote On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:19:09 -0800 (PST) "POLAX" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How are package optimizations specific to a particular package > specified? Easy. they aren't. Unless you do it in the commandline, portage doesn't do it. Some packages wipe all CFLAGS or ignore them completely because they break with all except -O2 , but we try to do as little as possible. > There are some package/flag combinations that don't work > (-mno-push-args-maccumulate-outgoing-args -mno-align-stringops for > reiserfstools). > > Have these all been tested and accounted for? This made me laugh, which is quite strange cause I'm at home with severe headache and fever. NO. We -cannot- test the compile flags. In fact most developers simply invalidate bugs from people with CFLAGS above the normal. Won't Even Touch It until you rebuild your whole dependency-tree with less CFLAGS. > If not how can I specify different flags for different packages? Commandline. CFLAGS="-march=i386 -mcpu=i686 -O2 -pipe" emerge reiserfstools Simple: by adding insane CFLAGS you shoot yourself into nomansland, and won't get support. //Spider -- begin .signature This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature! See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. end pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
