[gentoo-user] Why is glibc ntpl+nptl-only?

[gentoo-user] Why is glibc ntpl+nptl-only?

[Wolfgang Liebich]

Hi,
For my new gentoo system I switched to the latest & greatest profile -
2006.1. During the initial installation emerge told me "glibc 2.4 is
nptlonly" - so I turned on the nptl and nptlonly USE flags in make.conf.
Now my old linux system (profile 2006.0) tells me the same.
Sooo - i guess I would have to switch to the no-nptl profile in order to
keep the old (-nptl -nptlonly) settings. Is this a good Idea? Or is
using nptl+nptlonly better (faster, less hassle, less memory footprint)
anyways?
TIA,
Wolfgang Liebich
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is glibc ntpl+nptl-only?

[Jure Varlec]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1052 bytes --]

On Friday 15 September 2006 07:07, Wolfgang Liebich wrote:
> Hi,
> For my new gentoo system I switched to the latest & greatest profile -
> 2006.1. During the initial installation emerge told me "glibc 2.4 is
> nptlonly" - so I turned on the nptl and nptlonly USE flags in make.conf.
> Now my old linux system (profile 2006.0) tells me the same.
> Sooo - i guess I would have to switch to the no-nptl profile in order to
> keep the old (-nptl -nptlonly) settings. Is this a good Idea? Or is
> using nptl+nptlonly better (faster, less hassle, less memory footprint)
> anyways?
> TIA,
> Wolfgang Liebich

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 compile 
and larger disk footprint.

Regards,
Jure

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is glibc ntpl+nptl-only?

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 760 bytes --]

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 compile
> and larger disk footprint.

Is there a need for either nptl or nptlonly in our USE flags now that we have 
moved over to glibc-2.4 (assuming that we do not want linuxthreads anymore)?  
I currently have nptlonly in my make.conf and was wondering whether I should 
remove it.
-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Why is glibc ntpl+nptl-only?

[Jan-Hendrik Zab]

On Sat, 16 Sep 2006 09:49:32 +0100
Mick <michaelkintzios@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is there a need for either nptl or nptlonly in our USE flags now that we have 
> moved over to glibc-2.4 (assuming that we do not want linuxthreads anymore)?  
> I currently have nptlonly in my make.conf and was wondering whether I should 
> remove it.

Well, there are still a few pre 2.4 glibc versions in portage which use
nptl and nptl-only. Therefor the flags are at least still needed and
can't be entirely removed from portage. Furthermore, depending on your
profile the explicit flags can be removed, because they belong to the
default USE flags in the 2006.1 profile.
(This is of course only true as long as you're not excluding everything
with -* and therefor terminate the default set)

In 2006.0 only nptl is among the default flags.

	Jan-Hendrik Zab

-- 
| Jan-Hendrik Zab
| +49 (0)1773392888
| http://www.v3ng34nce.org

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list