Why not add a kind of VIEWPATH environment variable to the install tool.
(like in some compilers) The package that is found first in the list of
directories
will be installed
Joop
> I agree with Ben here - the binary distribution should remain _at least_
> 486 compatible, if not 386 compatible.
It should be compatible with anything Linux can run on...
say a i386, 4M RAM, 20M(?) flash drive and late '80s video.
- Bruce
On Tue, Mar 02, 1999 at 06:36:27PM -0600, Eric wrote:
> I was trying to install from the rpms which I converted to debs using
> alien. I didn't try installing from the source...I didn't really want
> to because I don't really want it to take the place of my normal
> gcc...I'd like to be able to r
On Tue, Mar 02, 1999 at 05:16:51PM -0600, Eric wrote:
> That's true, it would most definitely be a "symlink farm," but what's
> so bad about that? Priorities in apt would definitely be cool. Is
> that something that is definitely going to be incorporated?
>
> eric.
>
> On Tue, Mar 02, 1999 at 0
I was trying to install from the rpms which I converted to debs using
alien. I didn't try installing from the source...I didn't really want
to because I don't really want it to take the place of my normal
gcc...I'd like to be able to remove it from my system easily.
How much of the pentium optim
On Tue, Mar 02, 1999 at 02:41:03PM -0600, Eric wrote:
> I figure that they could have the important processor-intensive
> packages actually recompiled with PGCC and the rest of the things in
> binary-i686 would just be links to the packages in binary-i386.
Definately. Pentium optimised vi or cp
It depends on how it's been optimized. The FAQ on gcc.ml.org tells me
that using -mcpu will produce code which will run on any Intel CPU,
but will run best on whatever CPU you specify. However, the
-march=cpu option, which turns on optimizations which make use of the
specific instructions availa
That's true, it would most definitely be a "symlink farm," but what's
so bad about that? Priorities in apt would definitely be cool. Is
that something that is definitely going to be incorporated?
eric.
On Tue, Mar 02, 1999 at 03:05:56PM -0600, Stephen Pitts wrote:
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but
I have heard that pentium optimised code will work on 386's. I have
even heard that I think suse use pentium optimisations on there
release
stuff (and not in its own section). Personally I would think that
would be a bad idea even if it does work though, but it is just my two
cents.
On Tue, Mar 02, 1999 at 02:41:03PM -0600, Eric wrote:
> How about a simple solution? binary-i686 or somthing like that. This
> was actually discussed on the devel list fairly recently. However, it
> got brushed off as something that should be done when the directory
> structure on the FTP (and
How about a simple solution? binary-i686 or somthing like that. This
was actually discussed on the devel list fairly recently. However, it
got brushed off as something that should be done when the directory
structure on the FTP (and HTTP now...) servers is reorganized for dpkg
2.0. I guess th
Ben Collins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 1999 at 09:51:57AM +0100, Sami Dalouche wrote:
> > recommended) with PGCC. The minority who have a 386/486 now can't probably
> > use
> > these software because their CPU is too slow and if they want, they could
> > use
> > the src to com
On Tue, Mar 02, 1999 at 09:51:57AM +0100, Sami Dalouche wrote:
> recommended) with PGCC. The minority who have a 386/486 now can't probably use
> these software because their CPU is too slow and if they want, they could use
> the src to compile the softs on them own ?
The whole ideal of Linux is t
*** Just an Idea ! If it's too stupid, just don't scare it, please *
I think a great number of you are using a Pentium or K6 or something other
than a 386/486, so I don't understand why not compiling the multimedia
packages (like gimp, Imagemagick or the applications for which lots of
14 matches
Mail list logo
