[csw-pkgsubmissions] nss

[Dagobert Michelsen]

Hi,

Am 27.02.2010 um 00:36 schrieb Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 8:33 PM, Dagobert Michelsen <dam at opencsw.org> wrote:
>> 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).
> 
> What level of resource consumption difference are we talking about
> here?  Do you have any figures, like bytes or running time
> miliseconds?  Is it worth using time (=money) pushing back on this
> package as it is right now?

Removing isaexec is of severity "Tweak" I would say. I'd recommend
putting the two lines in the GAR Makefile so it gets cleaned up on
next release and push it as is as it works 100% fine.


Best regards

  -- Dago