Re: CD.

[Michael Schmitz <SCHMITZ@LCBVAX.CCHEM.BERKELEY.EDU>]

Hi,

>1. To see if it compiles. No point in selling a CD with Source that doesn't work.

Nice, but no one thinks you're responsible for the source in the first place.

>2. Optimisation (speed)

I hope you're not using optimization different from what the source maintainer
used? There's a reason for not over-optimizing code in many places. But again, 
not changing the optimization would mean you don't need to recompile (the fact
that a binary package exists proves, at least to me, that the code compiles).

>3. Some Packages aren't compiled for m68k yet

That's a valid reason :-)

>> WHY???? Why not use gcc 2.7.2.3 or whatever is the most current stable 
>> gcc release?? What egcs features do you need (that Debian/68k doesn't need, 
>> obviously)?? 
>
>egcs is more strict with warnings and errors and is closer to ansi. It 
>has some bugs left out and produces faster code. It also is faster
>compiling. Since it is (supposed to be ) gcc compatibel (except with
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^                ^^^^^^^^^^^^

>dirty or faulty code) there shouldn't be any difference (except the
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

It's supposed to be, but that's not necessarily a proven. And I don't think
it's up to you to judge what dirty or faulty code is. And I bet for the
gcc bugs egcs leaves out they introduced new ones. It's experimental, and 
to me, that means 'don't use for mission critcal work'. 

>gains mentioned above). Also I don't think its said anywhere that one
>must use gcc. Any Ansi C/C++ compiler should be fine.

Yea, should be. gcc is the stable C compiler for Linux (or did I miss
something?). Other people used it, successfully, so you better stick to it.

All you gain that way is that nobody will be able to comment on problems
with your distribution. You used different optimization, a different compiler, 
making it a truely unique product. 

>> ecgs is, for all I know, not a stable compiler, and it's definitely not advised
>> for e.g. kernel compilation. There's a reason why Debian sticks to gcc, I'm 
>> sure.
>
>There is an egcs 1.0 release wich works fine. At the moment we have
>egcs compiled kernels running on all the comps here but one. No
>crashes so far. Compiling a kernel is a pretty good test for a
>compiler and egcs did that just fine. (30 mins for a kernel with -O9)

I don't mind the speed of kernel compilation, I care about the stability of 
the kernel. Linus warns against using egcs for kernel builds. 

>The "unstableness", as you call it, of egcs is also another reason for 
>compiling everything. If that works fine, the egcs should also be
>fine.

That's just plain BS. You don't prove 'egcs is fine because nothing breaks on
the machines I'm testing'. Doing a egcs field test on your prospective users
is what you're doing. 
'I recompile everything because I use egcs' is a circular argument, sort of. 
Don't use egcs and you don't need to recompile all stuff. (If you truely
believe in the stability of egcs: don't recompile precompiled stuff, it
'should' work anyway :-)

	Michael


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-68k-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .