Re: [gentoo-user] Package Specific Optimizations?

2003-11-27 Thread Matthieu Amiguet
This brings up 1 more question (you're probably not going to like)...if there's a custom patch (possibly private - say for preferred keybindings or something) I'd like to apply to a package before compiling...is this possible as well? I'm not sure about this, but if you're looking for a

Re: [gentoo-user] Package Specific Optimizations?

2003-11-26 Thread Spider
begin quote On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:19:09 -0800 (PST) POLAX [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How are package optimizations specific to a particular package specified? Easy. they aren't. Unless you do it in the commandline, portage doesn't do it. Some packages wipe all CFLAGS or ignore them completely

Re: [gentoo-user] Package Specific Optimizations?

2003-11-26 Thread Frank Schäfer
Hi Spider, this all makes some sense - of course ;), but - me too - wondered about, how to build (for instance) gimp with tiff support but imagick without (I know, this is a stupid example.), without shooting myself in the foot during the next ``emerge -u world''. Maybe it would be good, to have

Re: [gentoo-user] Package Specific Optimizations?

2003-11-26 Thread Patrick Börjesson
this all makes some sense - of course ;), but - me too - wondered about, how to build (for instance) gimp with tiff support but imagick without(I know, this is a stupid example.), without shooting myself in the foot during the next ``emerge -u world''. Maybe it would be good, to have a

Re: [gentoo-user] Package Specific Optimizations?

2003-11-26 Thread Frank Schäfer
On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 13:06, Patrick Börjesson wrote: this all makes some sense - of course ;), but - me too - wondered about, how to build (for instance) gimp with tiff support but imagick without(I know, this is a stupid example.), without shooting myself in the foot during the next

Re: [gentoo-user] Package Specific Optimizations?

2003-11-26 Thread POLAX
On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 11:44:01 +0100, Spider wrote: begin quote On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 22:19:09 -0800 (PST) POLAX [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: How are package optimizations specific to a particular package specified? Easy. they aren't. Unless you do it in the commandline, portage doesn't

Re: [gentoo-user] Package Specific Optimizations?

2003-11-26 Thread POLAX
Looking for something like this? http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13616 Close...would like to control CFLAGS as well - this would make me happy as a clam. (And in my opinion make distros like LFS nothing more than a learning experience) Anyone sending unwanted advertising e-mail

Re: [gentoo-user] Package Specific Optimizations?

2003-11-26 Thread Patrick Börjesson
Looking for something like this? http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13616 Close...would like to control CFLAGS as well - this would make me happy as a clam. (And in my opinion make distros like LFS nothing more than a learning experience) When having the functionality of package

Re: [gentoo-user] Package Specific Optimizations?

2003-11-26 Thread Marius Mauch
On 11/26/03 Patrick Börjesson wrote: Looking for something like this? http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13616 Close...would like to control CFLAGS as well - this would make me happy as a clam. (And in my opinion make distros like LFS nothing more than a learning experience)

Re: [gentoo-user] Package Specific Optimizations?

2003-11-26 Thread POLAX
This was for two different occasions, just that my linebreak dissapeared: package specific optimizations aren't handled unless you do it on commandline. some packages are known and documented to break with certain flags, and if those flags are in the common area (-O3 comes to mind) they

Re: [gentoo-user] Package Specific Optimizations?

2003-11-26 Thread Spider
begin quote On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:54:34 -0800 (PST) POLAX [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I suppose then there may be interest in any Flag/Package combinations I find to be not workable. Perhaps on gentoo-dev? Not really. We can't go around and babysit, and the overhead is too great IMO. We fend

Re: [gentoo-user] Package Specific Optimizations?

2003-11-26 Thread POLAX
It will not be extended for CFLAGS. It would create a maintenance nightmare which we can't support, that's why the proposal was turned down. Where support fails a feature disclaimer prevails :- ) Anyone sending unwanted advertising e-mail to this address will be charged $25 for network