Re: SPARC Status (Was Re: Secondary Architecture Status?)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Ralf Corsepius wrote:
It likely is something worth looking into, but based on my experiences with Fedora on my netbook, I am having doubts compiler optimizations alone are worth a "secondary arch".
At least on my netbook, neither "speed" or "space" (mine has a disk) are 
actual problems.
Is for me! :-) But I don't think -Os is the solution; the problems tend 
to be long dep-chains and data (and especially, the intersection of 
both*). data tends to be much larger than code. Better would be more 
breaking up of huge packages (e.g. KDE) especially where it can reduce 
dependencies, or even conflicting package builds to provide different 
sets of optional features.
(* As a concrete example, I finally gave up on having kcalc installed, 
which allowed me to pull out foomatic. That was quite some space in that 
dep-chain. As another example, why does system-config-date require 
xulrunner? Something in F10 updates changed there and wanted to pull in 
quite some dependencies until I tracked down and nuked s-c-d as the 
responsible package.)
--
Matthew
ENOWIT: .sig file for this machine not set up yet

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux