epoll, LSB (was: Re: Problem roundup)

[Vitaliy Margolen]

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