On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 02:13:22PM +0100, Robert Bihlmeyer wrote: > Ross Boylan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > What is the debian way to do this when I'm building packages from > > source? > > Take a look at pentium-builder.
Thanks. > > > And, using kernel-package, how do I build kernels and modules > > appropriately? > > Well, "as usual". What problems do you have in mind? As I said, I want to turn on optimization for my machine. I had forgotten the kernel has an option for selecting the processor type, so I set Athlon/Duron. This had a couple of oddities/limitations: 1) despite this choice, the compiler lines were -march=i686 rather than athlon. I wonder why. 2) optimization was "only" -O2 3) I wasn't sure if this would affect the modules build, but that seems to have used the same options. The other problem was whether I should use some variant name to reflect the architecture. I decided not to (consistent with your advice below), though I did use make-kpkg --append-to-version because of other changes (patches) I applied. > > > Should I build packages that have subarchitecture names? > > You mean like "gzip-athlon"? This is not too useful, as other packages > will depend on them by their official names. > > > By the way, I believe it is safe to mix code I've optimized with regular > > unoptimized libraries (i.e., regular debs). > > Yes. > > > I also understand that I can't mix code from different versions of > > gcc, at least not C++ from 3.2. So I should stick with 2.95 unless I > > want to rebuild every package I use--correct? > > Yes, the C++ ABI fluctuated between 2.95 and 3.2. AFAIK there are no > similar problems with C. So going to 3.2 means rebuilding all C++ > libraries that you need first. > My impression is it was a moving target, so different versions are not compatible: 2.92 <> 3.1 <> 3.2 for example. Is that right, or is it just a break at 3.2? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
