On Tue, Oct 19, 2004 at 09:13:24AM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Wouter Verhelst (wouter@grep.be) [041019 00:40]:
> > Wesley's software can be built using software in main. It will not be as
> > fast, but it will still do its job, flawlessly, without loss of
> > features, with the ability to modify the software to better meet one's
> > needs if so required.
>
> I disagree.
>
> A program is IMHO not only specified by the fact that it does certain
> transformations from input to output, but also by the speed it does
> this.
There can be cases where compiling software using more recent toolchain
versions will result in a binary not running as fast as before (because
the newer libc is a bit more bloaty, or because some aggressive
optimization which was enabled before but which was deemed buggy by
design afterwards, was disabled again, or whatnot). Where is the
difference with using a non-free compiler?
> If this specification can be matched by gcc, why consider using
> icc at all? And if not, it requires icc. (You can also consider what
> happens when we want to do a security update: Does the security team
> need to install icc, or do we want that the software runs significantly
> slower afterwards, and misses its specification?)
If that is an issue, then it is also an issue for software currently in
main but which is built using toolchain versions that are now no longer
in main.
> If icc is required for that application, than it needs to go to contrib.
Indeed. However, as long as the software does indeed compile correctly
using gcc, one can say that icc is not required.
> If not, please compile it with gcc.
--
EARTH
smog | bricks
AIR -- mud -- FIRE
soda water | tequila
WATER
-- with thanks to fortune
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature