Re: HEADS UP: Ports are not ready for CFLAGS=-O2 in 6.0

From: Aaron Walker <ka0ttic_at_gentoo.org>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 04:15:33 -0500
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Kris Kennaway wrote:
| On Tue, Nov 02, 2004 at 05:36:17PM -0600, Kirk Strauser wrote:

|>Out of curiosity, are those ports like to have equivalents in Gentoo's
|>"portage" system?  Those guys love to build with -O310 -fomit-instructions
|>but their stuff seems to pretty much work.  Why do we seem to have so many
|>problems with (presumably?) the same software on our system?
|
|
| Don't know, perhaps they don't care about the fraction of ports that
| don't work properly since the rest of them have such eleet
| optimization.

Trust me, we care.  As another poster pointed out, packages that have known
problems with certain flags either replace them with safe alternatives or
filter them.

Btw, we don't all use insane CFLAGS.  We just happen to have a greater number
of clueless users who don't fully understand the flags they decide to use ;)

Cheers
- --
Multics is security spelled sideways.

Aaron Walker < ka0ttic_at_gentoo.org >	http://dev.gentoo.org/~ka0ttic/
Gentoo/BSD | cron | shell-tools		http://butsugenjitemple.org/~ka0ttic/

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBiKG1C3poscuANHARAm0hAKC6EKDGWYXnwt1X4GpA0muza7B7BgCdE+m8
XPEQHx0HC9B/WpJy9JAs9s8=
=NcGx
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Wed Nov 03 2004 - 09:52:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:20 UTC