[csw-pkgsubmissions] nss

Philip Brown phil at opencsw.org
Fri Feb 26 20:23:41 CET 2010

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski
<maciej at opencsw.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 8:16 PM, Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> wrote:
>> 1. why are we using libexec, for certificate utilities? Is there a
>> significant performance gain, and why do we CARE about performance,
>> for certificate utilities? surely it wont matter unless you are
>> processing thousands a minute, or something? what does that??
> This comes in GAR for free, by default, when you build 64-bit
> applications.  Is there a reason to disable it?

well, that was not my question. My question was really, "why are you
building 64bit applications"? :)

Extrapolating a bit, I guess what is going on, is that

1. You decided to build 64-bit libraries as well as 32bit libraries.
very nice, I certainly approve of that ;-)
However, this had a side effect of

2. gar "decided", since you want 64bit libraries, you also want 64bit
executables to go along with them.

But is that an actual benefit in this case?

I'm thinking not.

I'm also thinking, since you bring GAR up, that perhaps we should have
some kind of gar default for
"when doing a combined 32bit/64bit build, default to libs only, for 64bit"

This may or may not make more sense if the maintainer has split the
package up into "libs" vs "other stuff".
Dont know if you want to factor that into the decision, or whether you
want to just attempt to default to the above, reguardless.

What do you think?

PS: thanks for splitting it up.

More information about the pkgsubmissions mailing list