On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 01:30:16PM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 14.06.2013, at 13:21, Marcus Meissner wrote:
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 10:59:02AM +0200, Alexander Graf wrote:
Am 13.06.2013 um 10:52 schrieb Marcus Meissner <meissner@suse.de>:
On Thu, Jun 06, 2013 at 03:47:04PM +0200, Dinar Valeev wrote:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Andreas Schwab <schwab@suse.de> wrote:
Dinar Valeev <k0da@opensuse.org> writes:
> Well, the changes are only in compiler options. So it would be just > another rpm subarchitecture.
Well, you have to fix every specfile that refers to ppc64. I understand that.
There surely are more low-key approaches.
We could build a second set of ppc64 packages with a different repo setting.
(So instead of "standard" repository with a "power7" repository.)
That said, is it worth the effort?
We won't know without trying and benchmarking the results, no? I'm sure IBM would love to help us out on the latter.
So, do we go the full ppc64p7 triple arch? Or just build a set of ppc64 RPMs opotimized for Power7
I think for prototyping it should be enough to do the latter. Unfortunately IIUC RH is using a new triple arch, so we might eventually need to do the same to stay compatible.
I have set up yesterday a "power7" repo (besides standard) in openSUSE:Factory:PowerPC. I flagged it for "publish" too, hoping it wont get into the regular ftp tree we publish. Ciao, Marcus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-ppc+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-ppc+owner@opensuse.org