Athlon Incompatible Packages

[Tom Diehl]

On Tue, 24 Feb 2004, Ivan Gyurdiev wrote:

> > Seems to me that this is not a bug, but an intentional decision.  Either
> > way, outside of the fact that any efficiencies you got from the recompile
> > would probably never make up the number of CPU cycles required for the
> > build, 
> 
> Why do gentoo users make such a huge deal out of this?

I don't know, maybe they have too much free time on their hands?? ;)

> > you obviously have a special interest, which is outside of the
> > intended purpose of said SRPMS. That is great, just add the arch to the
> > spec file, and rebuild.  IF for some reason they wont build, it may merit
> > further discussion, but if all we are talking about is a spec file change,
> > it would take you much less time to make the change, than it would to file
> > the bug, and since it is fairly unlikely that most users would be
> > interested in doing such a rebuild themselves, it is work that would not be
> > repeated too often.  Developers can focus on things which have more of an
> > impact to users.
> 
> Would you be interested in adding the athlon arch if everything builds 
> correctly? I can check all those packages. Basically, I am interested to 
> know whether the packages in question really do *require* i386 and i386 
> only to work correctly, or whether simply nobody has checked (or cares) 
> whether this will work when compiled for athlon...

For the 3rd time IT IS NOT WORTH THE EFFORT. The packages that can see
significant performance gains by compiling for Athlon are already available.
The rest are compiled with i686 optimizations and that is good enough.

Look at the kernel packages for instance. You have an Athlon kernel available.

HTH,

Tom