Arjan van de Ven wrote: > 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 I guess I'm still scratching my head. Is there no way to produce the "kernel-sourcecode-*.noarch.rpm" package from the _default_ SPEC file? To me, that would be a default that I would like to debate. Or at least learn about more reasoning > 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 I totally missed the `whoami` in the line. Doh! Now it makes perfect sense. > 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. Really? Interesting. I'll have to research that more. I'm just kinda curious how you could optimally. Again, I'll have to research more before I ask again. > why bother ? I assemble clusters with lots of double precision floating point operations for engineering applications. > even in 2.6? Now that you mention it, I really need to look at this in more detail. Someone else mentioned the 4GB/4GB setting. I saw that too. But no, I didn't change it in my default SPEC (although I have built some custom kernels). I'm kinda curious if Fedora Core should ship a 1GB i686 kernel for desktops that have 1GB or less, since there is a good chance of a major performance difference. The old 1GB/3GB method would be better for a lot of desktops out there if added. But that's another debate. -- Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx ------------------------------------------------------------------ "Communities don't have rights. Only individuals in the community have rights. ... That idea of community rights is firmly rooted in the 'Communist Manifesto.'" -- Michael Badnarik
