Date: Wed, 17 Dec 1997 09:02:29 +0100 From: Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org> To: Satoshi Asami <asami@cs.berkeley.edu> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ilu port -O Message-ID: <19971217090229.60856@cons.org> In-Reply-To: <199712170024.QAA04610@vader.cs.berkeley.edu>; from Satoshi Asami on Tue, Dec 16, 1997 at 04:24:36PM -0800 References: <19971216183813.43639@cons.org> <199712170024.QAA04610@vader.cs.berkeley.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In <199712170024.QAA04610@vader.cs.berkeley.edu>, Satoshi Asami wrote: > * For these reasons, I would vote not to use -O for this port at all for > * now. I'll report this to the ILU team and try to narrow down the > * problematic object file. But this will take more time than I find > * acceptable to delay my commit of the new version. > > That is absolutely the right thing to do. However, please disable > packaging (just define NO_PACKAGE), we do not distribute binaries > compiled without optimization. Don't you think this is a too harsh requirement? I assume the intention is that the user can depend on packages being built with optimization. But shouldn't this really be "compiled with options so that it works and is as fast as possible but not faster"? If there is only one way to build, why not ship this one as a package? As I understand, disabling packageing for ports without -O should ensure that the user can turn it on on building time. If he can't do this anyway, what's the point? Martin -- %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Martin Cracauer <cracauer@cons.org> http://www.cons.org/cracauer cracauer@wavehh.hanse.de (batched, preferred for large mails) Tel.: (daytime) +4940 41478712 Fax.: (daytime) +4940 41478715 Tel.: (private) +4940 5221829 Fax.: (private) +4940 5228536 Paper: (private) Waldstrasse 200, 22846 Norderstedt, Germany
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19971217090229.60856>