On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Jonathan Underwood <jonathan.underwood@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2009/9/25 Deji Akingunola <dakingun@xxxxxxxxx>: >> On Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 10:57 AM, Jonathan Underwood >> <jonathan.underwood@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> >>> Would it not be best to have the default package using the default >>> CFLAGS for consistency with the rest of the distribution, and the >>> subpackages being variants which override the CFLAGS? >>> >> This is a different issue altogether. Even if atlas is made to used >> the default CFLAGS, it will still attempt to build for a particular >> CPU (either for the archictetural default passed to it at build time >> or the hardware on which it is being built), that's how the package >> was designed. > > Well, my point was that packages that do respect CFLAGS get built > currently with certain options, and however Atlas builds, the default > package should have comparable options. On x86, I see that is > presently -march=i686 -mtune=atom, and IIRC -march=i686 implies sse This is actually one of the reasons the atlas package doesn't use the CFLAGS; those options can be too generic (or too specific), atlas build procedure already tries to build for particular cpu types. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
