On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 09:58:13AM +0200, pietia wrote:
> so , why the developers doesn't recompile their packages ? Or why there
> are no
> packages in two version (compiled using gcc 3 and 4 )?
>
> Sorry for my questions - if sounds stupid.
Time to start reading about Debian.
Start at:
http:
pietia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> s. keeling pisze:
> > pietia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> Joey Hess pisze:
> >>
> >>> No, the debian buildds run unstable (except for the buildds used to build
> >>> updates for stable).
> >>
> >> for whitch architecture are optimized ?
> >
> > less /boot/config-$
On Tue, Sep 25, 2007 at 09:41:05AM +0200, pietia wrote:
>>> for whitch architecture are optimized ?
>>
>> less /boot/config-$(uname -r)
>
> No, probably you don't get it. If i have pentium (686) it doesn't mean
> that
> I use binary packages optimized for 686 in debian (x86) system.
>
>
s. keeling pisze:
pietia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Joey Hess pisze:
No, the debian buildds run unstable (except for the buildds used to build
updates for stable).
for whitch architecture are optimized ?
less /boot/config-$(uname -r)
No, probably you don't get it. I
pietia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Joey Hess pisze:
>
> > No, the debian buildds run unstable (except for the buildds used to build
> > updates for stable).
>
> for whitch architecture are optimized ?
less /boot/config-$(uname -r)
--
Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently ad
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > THe binaries you download from debian repositories are built using an
> > automatic system. THat system must be stable and reliable. So, it uses
> > and older, more tested and stable version of gcc to compile.=20
>
> No, the de
Joey Hess pisze:
No, the debian buildds run unstable (except for the buildds used to build
updates for stable).
for whitch architecture are optimized ?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 02:10:23PM -0400, Joey Hess wrote:
> Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 09:58:13AM +0200, pietia wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > so , why the developers doesn't recompile their packages ? Or why there
> > > are
> > > no
> > > packages in two version (compi
Andrew Sackville-West wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 09:58:13AM +0200, pietia wrote:
>
> >
> > so , why the developers doesn't recompile their packages ? Or why there are
> > no
> > packages in two version (compiled using gcc 3 and 4 )?
> >
> > Sorry for my questions - if sounds stupid.
>
On Mon, Sep 24, 2007 at 09:58:13AM +0200, pietia wrote:
>
> so , why the developers doesn't recompile their packages ? Or why there are
> no
> packages in two version (compiled using gcc 3 and 4 )?
>
> Sorry for my questions - if sounds stupid.
THe binaries you download from debian repositor
Celejar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The conventional wisdom seems to be that the kernel, libc, and various
> other compilation sensitive packages, such as mplayer, are indeed
> available in multiple, optimized flavors, and that for most other
> packages there isn't much to be gained by tweaking t
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 00:40:32 -0700
Amit Uttamchandani <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > hello ,
> >
> > i wonder why some of packages compiled from source are faster than
> > precompiled debs.
> >
> > for example - why the ruby interpreter in all tested version (look here
> > ,please http://www
Amit Uttamchandani pisze:
hello ,
i wonder why some of packages compiled from source are faster than
precompiled debs.
for example - why the ruby interpreter in all tested version (look here
,please http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/125344 ) 1.8.5,1.8.6, 1.9 is
much more faster
when is c
> hello ,
>
> i wonder why some of packages compiled from source are faster than
> precompiled debs.
>
> for example - why the ruby interpreter in all tested version (look here
> ,please http://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/125344 ) 1.8.5,1.8.6, 1.9 is
> much more faster
>
> when is compiled fro
14 matches
Mail list logo
