From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [69.77.167.62] (helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LUiVa-0000Xq-Qv for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2009 14:13:43 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 10B0EE0973; Wed, 4 Feb 2009 14:07:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-qy0-f20.google.com (mail-qy0-f20.google.com [209.85.221.20]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C74EBE0976 for ; Wed, 4 Feb 2009 14:07:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: by qyk13 with SMTP id 13so4806637qyk.10 for ; Wed, 04 Feb 2009 06:06:59 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:subject:from:reply-to:to :in-reply-to:references:content-type:date:message-id:mime-version :x-mailer; bh=Zt3YT0c3s6qVKdRpZFtNy1hFXXkLhj57mDyVo+1gQtY=; b=ejaud0nJ7n3HzZM38FtwAEYGTuycfftlN2ojAZtJjKJYhaf2d9Om0X21jbpKpe7BPs /sYqhAR2knFgWXxazlE6iU2a04H0EHz3mu3NrJArWKxAGalxVM8UIcxbnKl+SRPmjLra dKAuzLAGMf9xgvkqYbAsR2aRn3E+bWIU0IL0A= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:reply-to:to:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date :message-id:mime-version:x-mailer; b=Q1ySN4JEJ2O8MFx1C9brGq67Ex+dlbxc0vH3yAkqelrC0gLpHO9JdPHbUYxQujG8vp esEL3QzSVZe53rNmm9b/BfBvTUkTeefyNc76QraMOUZ0GcJR1LWcOTnnQqR2zNcx0AqP VbeVNo0Hbyb4ucL2S8GUp1cQ3lauvaKCU9Lyg= Received: by 10.214.241.12 with SMTP id o12mr3916733qah.360.1233756017072; Wed, 04 Feb 2009 06:00:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?190.203.88.146? ([190.203.88.146]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 5sm1369234qwg.55.2009.02.04.06.00.15 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Wed, 04 Feb 2009 06:00:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo's advantage: "optimized for your system" -- huh? From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Sebasti=E1n_Magr=ED?= To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <20090204133126.GC22980@revolver> References: <200902040858.23559.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> <20090204130332.GB22980@revolver> <1233753351.4596.18.camel@silversword> <20090204133126.GC22980@revolver> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-8aJflI9crTyLodPTIEAX" Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2009 09:26:15 -0430 Message-Id: <1233755775.4596.33.camel@silversword> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.22.3.1 X-Archives-Salt: 4d7d8edf-74f2-490f-ae3a-74afb09825a2 X-Archives-Hash: 1ba89861c8217f19f72eae355e02b12a --=-8aJflI9crTyLodPTIEAX Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable El mi=C3=A9, 04-02-2009 a las 14:31 +0100, Momesso Andrea escribi=C3=B3: > On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 08:45:50AM -0430, Sebasti=C3=A1n Magr=C3=AD wrote= : > [snip] > > >=20 > > > Often on gentoo related IRC chanels comes someone who asks why his > > > firefox-bin (or openoffice-bin or *-bin) runs faster than his > > > built-from-source firefox. > > >=20 > > > Usually chan's gurus answer that upstream packagers use all the possi= ble > > > compiler optimizations (CFLAGS LDFLAGS etc.) for the given package, > > > while the average gentoo users keeps a set of "system wide very safe > > > optimizations" that are good for most packages, but not the best for > > > every particolar package. > > >=20 > > > Is that statement correct?=20 > > >=20 > > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > > > TopperH > > > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > >=20 > > I've always felt the compiled openoffice faster than the binary one, bu= t > > if it is not the case portage also gives you the chance of establishing > > per-package optimisations on '/etc/portage/env/' or in the paludis > > bashrc, so if one user wants an particular app to go faster, he can > > research about the best way to build this one. This way, the user can > > keep the very safe optimisations for the rest of the system and some > > -unsafe optimisations- for the packages he want. > >=20 > > It is more about choices... >=20 > Sure, I've used per-package optimizations myself in some particular > cases, but that's not the point. >=20 > A package manteiner *should* know better than an average user which > optimizations will tune better their own package. >=20 > My question can be put like this: Do binary distro's per package > optimiziations override the benefit of having arch specific > optimiziations that gentoo allows? >=20 >=20 > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D > TopperH > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D It does, but I am almost sure that most of the binary distro's package maintainers can't ship a package with hard optimisations because it will possibly work fine on his box but not in the user's box. There is where we heard histories about binary distros users compiling their apps to improve it's performance, possibly breaking their system at the same time. Gentoo maintainers *should* also know better than the users which optimisations can be given to the user for a package to build and work fine... Other case is when it represents a risk of having unstable apps, in that case dropping optimisations is necessary in order to have more stable apps. --=-8aJflI9crTyLodPTIEAX Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: Esta parte del mensaje =?ISO-8859-1?Q?est=E1?= firmada digitalmente -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAkmJnn8ACgkQXk6IGbO9i1mzZgCgmu0RDvSANL1+D9RRNz59OkCZ n9oAniN9KDhI/QG/oKsCoPTeeOxu2ySu =wvLD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-8aJflI9crTyLodPTIEAX--