Kevin Fenzi <kevin-+bl/7iUgRMUAvxtiuMwx3w(a)public.gmane.org> writes: > On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 15:54:13 +0100 > Dave Love <d.love-sZfJFUT1i4lOXXNyRuEUqw(a)public.gmane.org> wrote: > >> I was reviewing some documentation which includes: >> >> Redhat for example has a very optimal tool chain which they use for >> their Enterprise product line and it is not available to other >> distributions (or rebuilds) and thus their resulting binaries and >> libraries have been more performant then other Linux distributions >> we have tested. >> >> Can someone say if that's correct? I assumed building was done >> similarly to koji. >> >> (I could experiment, but it seems better to ask where someone >> presumably knows, assuming they can say.) > > I don't know (I work for Red Hat, but am not directly involved with > internal builds), but I am highly skeptical of the claim. Likewise (currently). > That said, why not ask whoever wrote that doc for some kind of > citation or proof? They say something about testing, so perhaps they > have some proof of this? It was deduced experimentally during early -- for some value of early -- CentOS development. I'll suggest the reference to Red Hat is changed. It could be important to know if it was correct now, which was a reason for asking here. I assume that rebuilds are essentially the same as RHEL (modulo reproducible builds) when it comes to things like reporting bugs and issues relevant to EPEL development. Specifically I assume they won't potentially have different code generation bugs.
