| 1 |
On Wed, Feb 04, 2009 at 08:45:50AM -0430, Sebastián Magrí wrote: |
| 2 |
[snip] |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > Often on gentoo related IRC chanels comes someone who asks why his |
| 5 |
> > firefox-bin (or openoffice-bin or *-bin) runs faster than his |
| 6 |
> > built-from-source firefox. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > Usually chan's gurus answer that upstream packagers use all the possible |
| 9 |
> > compiler optimizations (CFLAGS LDFLAGS etc.) for the given package, |
| 10 |
> > while the average gentoo users keeps a set of "system wide very safe |
| 11 |
> > optimizations" that are good for most packages, but not the best for |
| 12 |
> > every particolar package. |
| 13 |
> > |
| 14 |
> > Is that statement correct? |
| 15 |
> > |
| 16 |
> > ======= |
| 17 |
> > TopperH |
| 18 |
> > ======= |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
> I've always felt the compiled openoffice faster than the binary one, but |
| 21 |
> if it is not the case portage also gives you the chance of establishing |
| 22 |
> per-package optimisations on '/etc/portage/env/' or in the paludis |
| 23 |
> bashrc, so if one user wants an particular app to go faster, he can |
| 24 |
> research about the best way to build this one. This way, the user can |
| 25 |
> keep the very safe optimisations for the rest of the system and some |
| 26 |
> -unsafe optimisations- for the packages he want. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> It is more about choices... |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Sure, I've used per-package optimizations myself in some particular |
| 31 |
cases, but that's not the point. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
A package manteiner *should* know better than an average user which |
| 34 |
optimizations will tune better their own package. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
My question can be put like this: Do binary distro's per package |
| 37 |
optimiziations override the benefit of having arch specific |
| 38 |
optimiziations that gentoo allows? |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
|
| 41 |
======= |
| 42 |
TopperH |
| 43 |
======= |
Archives