hi,
soliciting comments on http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=6820 ( which
deals with the partial component inclusion of glusterfs into the base
distro ). There are a couple of workarounds mentioned there, but none
seem perfect.
In an ideal world, it would be nice if Red Hat had their RHS gluster
rpms in line with the gluster rpms shipped in the base distro and we
could use those into CentOS-Extras.
the closest other practical option seems to be building gluster --with
server enabled, and shipping the extra rpms into CentOS-Extras; provided
the '--with server' is retained going forward, this would atleast mean
we have version sync between the client code in the distro and the
server code in CentOS Extras.
The option of just adding all the gluster code into the distro we ship,
server and client content included, seems very intrusive and might have
an impact on third party expectations.
- KB
--
Karanbir Singh
+44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh
GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc
Hi,
As posted in this bug http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=6843 there are
now problems with the current firefox on CentOS 5 to shutdown firefox
cleanly.
If others experience the same please report if you can reproduce it.
While we are at it, may it be possible for the developers to rebuild the
package with the correct config as shown here:
http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=6843#bugnotes
If it makes no difference then we at least know that it may also happen
with upstreams package.
Regards and thanks for all the hard work!
Simon
Hi,everyone
http://www.redhat.com/archives/shrike-list/2003-April/msg00069.htmlhttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/StackTraceshttp://old-en.opensuse.org/Packaging/Debuginfo
This document said:"passing -g to gcc or g++". And "Note that the default CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS of the distro already contain -g, "
My question is :
I build souce code a.c with myself gcc/make configfile.
first time: compile a.c with -O2,then get a1.bin
second time: compile a.c woth -O2 -g,then strip debug symbols.then get a2.bin
But i find a2.bin is slower then a1.bin.The performance of a2.bin is 5% slower.
Should a2.bin run as fast as a1.bin?(performance is same?)//Tomorrow i will provide the complete commands.
Can anyone give some advice?
I find that:rpmbuild run gcc one time with -g -O2,then get a.rpm and a.debuginforpm.
thanks.