Arjan van de Ven wrote:
yes the plan is to not ship the sourcecode package at all for fc3
but
release note how to get the sourcecode from the src.rpm
I guess I'm still scratching my head.
Is there no way to produce the "kernel-sourcecode-*.noarch.rpm" package
from the _default_ SPEC file?
To me, that would be a default that I would like to debate.
Or at least learn about more reasoning
actually it is to differentiate local builds vs buildsystem builds;
mostly that is for my own sanity so that I know my own local builds and
know that they don't match exact CVS tags
I totally missed the `whoami` in the line. Doh! Now it makes perfect
sense.
the gain Athlon gave previously is, in 2.6 kernels, now a runtime
option not a compiletime option, so no need to have different kernels
for athlon anymore.
Really? Interesting. I'll have to research that more.
I'm just kinda curious how you could optimally.
Again, I'll have to research more before I ask again.
why bother ?
I assemble clusters with lots of double precision floating point
operations for engineering applications.
even in 2.6?
Now that you mention it, I really need to look at this in more detail.
Someone else mentioned the 4GB/4GB setting. I saw that too. But no,
I didn't change it in my default SPEC (although I have built some
custom kernels).
I'm kinda curious if Fedora Core should ship a 1GB i686 kernel for
desktops that have 1GB or less, since there is a good chance of a
major performance difference. The old 1GB/3GB method would be better
for a lot of desktops out there if added.
But that's another debate.
--
Bryan J. Smith b.j.smith(a)ieee.org
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Communities don't have rights. Only individuals in the community
have rights. ... That idea of community rights is firmly rooted
in the 'Communist Manifesto.'" -- Michael Badnarik