From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1GOVyq-0001sA-1T for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sat, 16 Sep 2006 08:56:56 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with SMTP id k8G8tTBP019566; Sat, 16 Sep 2006 08:55:29 GMT Received: from nf-out-0910.google.com (nf-out-0910.google.com [64.233.182.184]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.8/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k8G8kngm021315 for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2006 08:46:49 GMT Received: by nf-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id p46so3094307nfa for ; Sat, 16 Sep 2006 01:46:49 -0700 (PDT) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:from:reply-to:to:subject:date:user-agent:references:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:message-id; b=deI/DhYOAIxeNrSVkXYJirOCzmAfPyio+76RREqn4GBfgzSXyE6Vihssudt1ApJ6zJkzBCUE0VERgMy5U9NIBe97zElDz3N8WMgm7XjwanIm4bhV+rWIbc3vyWnfkJRCjNFHBfgHzbUEfhhRx+wM2KJcJcriHMara6krA/+HF00= Received: by 10.78.165.16 with SMTP id n16mr2257002hue; Sat, 16 Sep 2006 01:46:49 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?192.168.0.5? ( [213.162.120.196]) by mx.gmail.com with ESMTP id 30sm10051407hue.2006.09.16.01.46.48; Sat, 16 Sep 2006 01:46:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Mick To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Why is glibc ntpl+nptl-only? Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2006 09:49:32 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1 References: <20060915050708.GA26894@pce151.ram.siemens.at> <200609161014.23081.exzombie@exzombie.homeip.net> In-Reply-To: <200609161014.23081.exzombie@exzombie.homeip.net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart3218743.7lqEVYooyU"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200609160949.45886.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: 8b1c7d32-deb2-4401-a666-9c4da91428ce X-Archives-Hash: 8c90a8ccc04bc8ff0a80de2bc3625a41 --nextPart3218743.7lqEVYooyU Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On Saturday 16 September 2006 09:14, Jure Varlec wrote: > Well, the new glibc-2.4 only supports nptl, unlike glibc-2.3 which > supported both threading models. So if you want legacy linuxthreads, you > have to stay with glibc-2.3. > As for being "better", glibc-2.4 is better than 2.3 IMHO. > Also, "nptl -nptlonly" combination with 2.3 actually builds two versions = of > glibc, one with nptl and one with linuxthreads, so you get a longer compi= le > and larger disk footprint. Is there a need for either nptl or nptlonly in our USE flags now that we ha= ve=20 moved over to glibc-2.4 (assuming that we do not want linuxthreads anymore)= ? =20 I currently have nptlonly in my make.conf and was wondering whether I shoul= d=20 remove it. =2D-=20 Regards, Mick --nextPart3218743.7lqEVYooyU Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBFC7qp5Fp0QerLYPcRAoRuAJ9aZ+okQg9qIsxc8T2O/2VYfSL5bgCaA/JB robxyTUc7vgB8Gnv+3ePG6k= =appc -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart3218743.7lqEVYooyU-- -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list