Neohapsis is currently accepting applications for employment. For more information, please visit our website www.neohapsis.com or email firstname.lastname@example.org
From: Matt Turner (mattst88gmail.com)
Date: Tue Jan 13 2009 - 10:16:39 CST
On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 3:59 AM, Oliver Falk <oliverlinux-kernel.at> wrote:
> Well, what's the point? :-)
OK, I'll play along.
>> Jay Estabrook mentioned to me that he just got xulrunner to compile
>> again, but only with -O0. If this was ever an issue with Gentoo, it's
>> long since fixed.
> -O0 is already gone with the latest build (it's -O2 now). We now only have
> --no-relax, passed to the linker.
After working on the problem, Jay independently came to the exact
solution Gentoo arrived at before. This, by definition, is duplication
>> You, Oliver, and Jay are two of the best developers we have, and it
>> seems to me to be such a waste of your time and effort to worry about
>> hunting down a build error and generating RPMs.
> Thx a lot for the flowers :-)
> Well, hunting down build errors is what we *have to do*. If we wouldn't do
> that, we wouldn't have recent gcc, glibc, xulrunner, firefox, kernel, ...
> And that we produce RPMs, well, we're packaging for Fedora. :-)
Hunting down build errors is what you *have to do* to bring Fedora up
the the current level of Gentoo. It's not as general a statement as
you make it. Maybe _Fedora_ wouldn't have recent gcc, glibc,
xulrunner, firefox, kernel, ... but these packages already exist in a
working state elsewhere.
>> It's a hard question Oliver, but don't you feel that it might be better
>> for the architecture to join up efforts on one distribution?
> Sure. Fedora :-P
I don't know if you intentionally dodge these questions or what.
Given the previous examples, I rhetorically ask wouldn't it be
beneficial to work on a sole distribution, thereby preventing this
wasteful duplication of effort.
Surely you understood all this initially though.
axp-list mailing list