On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 02:12:09PM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 07:45:20AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: >> On Mon, Jan 26, 2009 at 11:15:01AM +0100, Jakub Jelinek wrote: >> For ppc, the most common hardware would be the G4 PowerMacs. Use of >> -march=power4 would seem suboptimal there. Which sort of sucks because > >Suboptimal is probably wrong word, it would preclude Fedora 11 running on Yes, I was being cautious because I didn't have any coffee in me yet and didn't want to proclaim DOOM immediately :). >G4. I guess we can keep -march for -m32 powerpc unchanged then, -mtune >will be still power6. We can default to -march=power4 for -m32 for RHEL >only (already RHEL5 has power4 built shared glibc libraries). OK. So default32 for ppc, power4 for ppc64. (btw, it's -mcpu on PowerPC, but you probably knew that already.) >> >For the -march/-mcpu default changes, I think nothing is required from the >> >koji build infrastructure (I don't think there are 31-bit mainframes >> >around in koji/brew and I don't think there are 32-bit powerpcs or >> >i386/i486s among the build boxes either), on the other side that decision >> >has to be made almost immediately (before the world is rebuilt with gcc >> >4.4.0). >> >> I'm going to assmue that you are wanting a mass-rebuild of all of Fedora with >> gcc 4.4. Is that going to land this week? From a scheduling perspective, >> if a rebuild is going to happen it would be fairly important to have most of >> it done by Beta. Feature freeze is March 3rd. Beta freeze is March 10. > >Yes, I want a mass rebuild with gcc 4.4 for Fedora 11, and new gcc can land >into dist-f11 during this week. OK. We'll need to run that past FESCo, but I don't think there will be much opposition to it. >> >For glibc --enable-kernel= default this requires that all koji build boxes >> >and anything else that needs to run Fedora 11 binaries runs at least 2.6.29 >> >kernels, but the change might be still delayed for a few weeks. >> >> The koji build boxes all run RHEL 5. Getting them upgraded to a not-yet- >> released kernel seems unlikely. > >I know it is a pain, on the other hand it would really improve Fedora 11. I agree. Does it have to be .29, or would something slightly older (and theoretically more stable) suffice? The .27.x release has been in use for F-9 and F-10 for a while now. josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
