WebSite Information > Article Discussions
Choice of update channel for eCS / OS2
Boris:
--- Quote from: Dariusz Piatkowski on August 02, 2015, 05:29:40 am ---Quite frankly, your DLL tracker is a great tool...I only wish that it was more prominently "published" and/or showcased as part of releases like Firefox...because it has the potential to help that part of our community who needs it.
--- End quote ---
It had been announced.
Still its use should be discouraged in favor of RPM as you may face an older version which will cause problems.
Dariusz Piatkowski:
--- Quote from: Boris on August 02, 2015, 05:55:47 am ---Sorry, I'm tired of this meaningless debate.
--- End quote ---
You are right...this debate is meaningless, too bad, because all along I thought the subject of this thread was : "Choice of update channel for eCS / OS2", yet there you were once again preverbially stuck on RPM/YUM, while I tried to illustrate with numerous examples while RPM/YUM as an update channel may not be the best approach for everyone.
--- Quote from: Boris on August 02, 2015, 05:55:47 am ---I'm not going to argue with every single statement (you've just gone crazy at some places), which you really wrote a lot (honestly I even didn't read your post thoroughly).
--- End quote ---
Sometimes it does take a little elbow grease to get to the bottom of a root cause and that statement above is sufficient for me to understand while you clearly miss the big picture.
I'm out of discussing RPM/YUM as an udpate channel with you, it is pointless, you are certainly right on that.
Dave Yeo:
--- Quote from: Dariusz Piatkowski on August 02, 2015, 05:29:40 am ---
Here is a better one: take the official stdcpp6.dll RPM release file (libstdc++6-4.9.2.1-3.oc00.i386.rpm), the recently created moz_required_dlls_v1.03.zip has a different DLL in it altogether. Which one to use now?
libstdc++6-4.9.2.1-3.oc00.i386.rpm => 02/02/2015, 410187 bytes
moz_required_dlls_v1.03.zip => 01/02/2015 14:08, 388453 bytes
--- End quote ---
Probably different architectures. There are builds for i386, i686 and P4. Personally I use i686 to get a few newer instructions, better instruction ordering for my C2D. Others use the P4 for more instructions and take the hit caused by the instruction ordering unless they actually are using a P4. The i386 seems useless as I don't know of anyone using older then a PII. Firefox is built targeting the i486 instruction set, my builds target the i686 instruction set. I've tried targeting my C2D but our tool chain is buggy and doesn't align all SSE* instructions correctly.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version