Sunday, November 21, 2004, 2:38:31 PM, you wrote:
> Le sam 20/11/2004 à 13:58, Mike Hearn a écrit : > [snip] >> There have been discussions about this on fedora-devel, I think the >> conclusion was that you don't need to do this. Basically compiling for >> i586 using athlon scheduling should give great results on all processors >> even P4 due to the internal chip designs, or somesuch. >> >> I think an i686 build of Wine will bear close resemblance to an i386 >> build as we have no hand written assembly that would benefit and >> the new instruction i686 provides over i586 is quite specialist >> and not used by gcc nor Wine. >> >> At least this is my understanding. > I never claimed there's a big speed advantage between the 3 builds. But > since I (for myself) prepare the athlon one, and at least the i386 one > for everybody else, I may as well prepare the i686 one. >> >> > Compound that with the fact that I provide for quite a few older >> > versions of RH (RH7.3, RH8, RH9) and FC (FC1, FC2, soon FC3) and WBEL >> > (WBEL 3), and that there are wine-devel packages too (only the i386 >> > flavor), and you get the big quantity of packages there are. >> >> Yes while we're on the subject the FC2 RPMs are compiled with libICU >> giving GDI32 a dependency on libstdc++ 5, whereas FC3 apparently only >> installs libstdc++ 6 by default requiring the user to install >> compat-libstdc++ (assuming they can diagnose the linker/rpm error of >> course). > I guess that'd depend on where libICU comes from (and which libstdc++ > it's compiled against). AFAIK, libICU is not shipped with FC2 nor FC3, > so the libstdc++ version will depend on where it comes from (ie, not > under my control). If people begin to mix from 3rd party builds without > any thought about the dependancies on their system... >> >> This came to light because a user tried to install the FC2 RPM on FC3 due >> to lack of FC3 RPMs. > I know, I haven't got around finding time to install it yet. And I have > one less video card for yet a couple of days, which makes it a bit more > difficult to install it on a second computer while still using my > primary one. >> >> > The name and version number of the target is in the rpm filename, so it >> > should be easy to pick the good one. >> >> People choosing the wrong RPM is a very common mistake. > What do you propose then? I can't prevent all user mistakes when they > choose a filename. >> >> > Do you think I should add an explicit dependancy on the redhat-release >> > (or fedora-release) package, so people don't install them on the wrong >> > distribution? >> >> That might help yes. > And I'll most probably do it for next release. > [snip] > Vincent