epoll, LSB (was: Re: Problem roundup)

[Vincent Béron]

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