On (10/24/11 09:37), Myra Nelson wrote: -~> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 06:53, Tom Gundersen <teg@xxxxxxx> wrote: -~> > On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Martti Kühne <mysatyre@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: -~> >> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Tom Gundersen <teg@xxxxxxx> wrote: -~> >> <snip> -~> >>> Maybe this requirement should be communicated more clearly (e.g. a -~> >>> comment in the standard pacman.conf)? -~> >> -~> <snip> -~> doesn't get it and start slicing and dicing. Keep the commentary -~> civil. -~> -~> Myra -~> -~> -~> -- -~> Life's fun when your sick and psychotic! It is simple: if you don't use testing you never learn. Telling others "RTFM and don't ask questions" is ridiculous, because following this logic >50% of forum posts is just noise. And just because you subscribe to ML doesn't mean that you'll remember 1 relevant message out of 100 (personally I learned more from http://allanmcrae.com/2011/08/pacman-package-signing-3-pacman/ about pacman package signing than from all of [{arch,pacman}-dev*]. This is of course not to say that ML are not important, beacuse they are. Besides, one really doesn't have to enable testing in pacman.conf -- individual pacman -U will do, imho. Regarding your compile flags, I would use -match=native (instead of your -march and -m) and -fstack-protector-all (instead of -fstack-protector) if you don't mind increasing the size of binaries a little. -- Leonid Isaev GnuPG key ID: 164B5A6D Key fingerprint: C0DF 20D0 C075 C3F1 E1BE 775A A7AE F6CB 164B 5A6D
Attachment:
pgp4UMQCmNgn_.pgp
Description: PGP signature
