[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <AD07B8C6-6C9F-4D0E-968C-61BC97AC9217@palsenberg.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 09:05:39 +0200
From: Igmar Palsenberg <igmar@...senberg.com>
To: owl-dev@...ts.openwall.com
Subject: Re: mpc, gmp, mpfr, gcc .specs
> Is there any special reason why you've packaged slightly outdated
> versions of gmp (4.3.2 instead of 5.x) and mpfr (3.0.1 instead of 3.1.0)?
>
> Do you feel we have to use those older versions for RHEL6 binary
> compatibility? While this might be true for gmp (major version number
> change), I doubt that this is the case for mpfr. In general, we should
> try to use the latest versions and only use older versions if we really
> have to.
Is there a reason not to include those libs in-tree in the build ? Building those libs out-of-tree makes the RPM dependent on those version,
and makes upgrading them a PITA. Building them in-tree also links them in statically, and that is one library less to be concerned about.
It also prevents issues when an upgrade screws up your GCC instance, and generates nasty ICE's.
Regards,
Igmar
Powered by blists - more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use?
Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia
and check out these
guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.
