Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2011 11:35:29 +0400
From: Solar Designer <>
Subject: Re: mpc, gmp, mpfr, gcc .specs

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 11:37:40AM +0200, Igmar Palsenberg wrote:
> There aren't many users for those libs. RHEL uses a different (older) version, so the only user currently is gcc. In my opinion, sensitive libs like this
> should be packaged with GCC itself, so the users can switch versions / remove them at will, without breaking gcc.

I find the above partially self-contradictory: not many users for those
libs, yet you expect users of Owl to want to switch versions of the libs
for some reason?  And to want to do that on the system globally?  Also,
when you say that the users will want to do something with those libs,
doesn't it imply that some of those users would actually be happy to
find the libs readily available in Owl (if the versions are fine for a
given purpose)?

As to the difference from RHEL, as Vasiliy determined our newer gmp
actually appears to be binary-compatible with RHEL's (we only needed to
add one extra symlink, and our build of gcc made against older gmp
worked fine with the newer - rebuilding the entire userland as a test).

> > In practice, I expect that I will in fact be making custom builds of
> > gcc, and saving a few minutes on not having to build the libs each time
> > (even if done automatically by gcc's build scripts) is desirable.
> It's marginal compared to the gcc build time if you ask me. You want to reconsider, gcc should depend on as few as possible packages.

Maybe.  You definitely have some valid points.  And there's one more: it
turns out that gmp gets linked against libgcc, so these are tied
together more closely than I had expected.

That said, I am going to stay with our current approach at packaging for
now.  Re-doing things that work for us already is not going to help us
achieve any goal now, whereas we do have goals to achieve to make Owl
actually more useful.



Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.