Re: Bug#857172: Please enable SSE2 on amd64 and disable altivec on PPC ports
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
On 03/08/2017 07:40 PM, Konstantinos Margaritis wrote:
> That could be applied to many/most/all? packages, so why bother packaging them in the first place? Sorry, that's not a very good argument.
Actually, it is. ATLAS is one of these libraries which contain lots
of CPU optimization code and if you really want to use ATLAS for
actual number crunching, you want to build it from source. It is
very common practice in the scientific work. I am a graduated physicist
who used to do number crunching on such clusters and I also happened
to maintain several of such clusters for work.
>> You shouldn't make such statement without actually mentioning the section of the Debian Policy which states that Altivec has to be turned off by default
>> or which makes a generic statement regarding this.
>
> I did not mean to sound offensive, but it's just a fact. If a package is built with altivec, it will fail on all non-altivec CPUs, so that by definition
> makes the package unusable, hence a grave bug report. By all means, let's change the minimum architecture requirements so that it's not, and we set Altivec
> as mandatory but until we do that (and I actually would vote for that with both hands), it is a grave bug. No need to even quote policy for that, as right
> now powerpc port page states those machines as supported.
I am still waiting for the section from the policy. You cannot make these
bold statements and then not come up with the necessary prove.
I assume you are aware of the fact that Debian's i386 port requires at
least an i686 CPU these days. How does that fit with your line of
arguments? According to your logic, all packages would be affected
by RC bugs because they stopped supporting i386 long time ago.
I'm sorry, but this argument contradicts the current practice.
> Again I don't disagree there, but since it's not a release architecture, we could just move on to newer CPUs and change the minimum specs -which would IMHO
> be a good thing, as it would lower the number of supported platforms to a much smaller and more manageable set.
Again, look at i386.
> I have enough PowerPC boxes here, but none without Altivec, so even if I wanted to, I couldn't even test lack of the feature, and I don't care enough to go
> into the trouble of doing that.
So, you actually don't bother at all and don't want to go through
any efforts of testing, yet you insist on your stance. Odd.
Adrian
- --
.''`. John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
: :' : Debian Developer - glaubitz@debian.org
`. `' Freie Universitaet Berlin - glaubitz@physik.fu-berlin.de
`- GPG: 62FF 8A75 84E0 2956 9546 0006 7426 3B37 F5B5 F913
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----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=kyio
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: