Re: libc6-i686 only for 2.6 kernels? was: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel
On Tue, 2003-11-11 at 15:29, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 05:08:16AM +0100, Dagfinn Ilmari Mannsåker wrote:
> > Daniel Jacobowitz <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > > On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 07:17:13PM -0800, Mike Fedyk wrote:
> > >> On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:43:09PM +0100, Robert Millan wrote:
> > >> > And Nikita just pointed out there's libc6-i686. It might make sense to add
> > >> > linux-i686 too. I'm open for discussing that, but this discussion doesn't
> > >> > belong on the ITP bug.
> > >>
> > >> And why is it only for 2.6 kernels? The processor specific package should
> > >> support NPTL, and it doesn't require 2.6...
> > >
> > > That sentence is contradictory - NPTL requires 2.6.
> > But there should be a non-NPTL i686-optimized libc6 too, as in
> > /lib/i686/cmov/ in addtion to the current /lib/tls/i686/cmov/.
> Gotta draw the line somewhere. We chose to draw it there.
> Building glibc four times on x86 hardware seems to be a bit excessive
> for our needs.
How long does a glibc compile take?
Eg., would just basic i386 binaries, with say a -builder version
(or script - anything remotely along the lines of gentoo), be a
better way to optimize packages? For example:
--arch i686 --no-mmx
Packages (such as kernel, glibc, gimp) could optionally provide a
"hints" file with optmized build recommendations (+'ve as well as
-'ve) which could be overridden, etc.
(I haven't used or looked at gentoo, so I don't know if what I am
saying is plain silly or not ...)
Such a scheme would have the advantages of:
- minimizing debian repo size (no custom optimized binary packages)
- optimal optimization as opposed to lcd/"lowest denominator" optimize
and at least the disadvantages of:
- not so simple to get optimized build
(although possibly could configure to auto optimize some packages)
- optimized-build local packaging scripts would need to be written
(ie. it doesn't yet exist)
There are surely more (dis)advantages not on the top of my head...