[csw-pkgsubmissions] nss

Dagobert Michelsen dam at opencsw.org
Fri Feb 26 21:33:32 CET 2010

Hi Phil,

Am 26.02.2010 um 20:23 schrieb Philip Brown:
> 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.

Probably yes (means: I also think 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?

Well, personally I like the default as it is now, but I am open for
discussion. What I don't like is that changing the default would mean
adjusting lots of Makefiles.

Best regards

   -- Dago

More information about the pkgsubmissions mailing list