On Sun, 2004-09-26 at 20:10, Bryan J. Smith wrote: > 1. The "sourcecode" package, which is now ARCH="noarch" > > Assumption: > I assume the package name change was because the ARCH has changed. correct; this was during a fc2 update > > Additional Q: > Why is the "sourcecode" package not built by default when > "--target=noarch" is passed? I.e., > %ifarch noarch > %define builddoc 1 > %define buildsource 0 > ^^^ yes the plan is to not ship the sourcecode package at all for fc3 but release note how to get the sourcecode from the src.rpm > 2. There is another variable in EXTRAVERSIONS, defaults to "root" > > Assumption: > I assume this is to differentiate between UML (User Mode Linux) > kernels (so the same build system can be used)? actually it is to differentiate local builds vs buildsystem builds; mostly that is for my own sanity so that I know my own local builds and know that they don't match exact CVS tags > Additional Q: > Is this a stock kernel change? Or Red Hat only? EXTRAVERSION is strictly defined by Red Hat, in upstream it's designed for free use for packagers ;) > 3. Athlon no longer a build option at all in the SPEC file the gain Athlon gave previously is, in 2.6 kernels, now a runtime option not a compiletime option, so no need to have different kernels for athlon anymore. > Additional Q: > Is there any reason why we can't "patch back in" just the few changes > into the SPEC so one can build Athlon kernels easily with > "--target=athlon"? why bother ? > > [ **BTW, I'm fully aware that the i686 kernel runs fairly optimized on > Athlon. But turning off the generic support, and optimizing for K7 > makes a significant difference for me in engineering applications. ] even in 2.6?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
