[Trac-bugs] [PC-BSD Trac] #337: Enhanced Version

[PC-BSD]

#337: Enhanced Version
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------
 Reporter:  josiaslg              |       Owner:     
     Type:  System Enhancement    |      Status:  new
 Priority:  trivial               |   Milestone:  8.2
Component:  System Configuration  |     Version:  8.1
 Keywords:                        |  
----------------------------------+-----------------------------------------

Comment(by vans):

 Yeah, I've thought about such version too. But you was the first one to
 post it. :)
 But, It'll be 4 more different versions? Did you mean intel/amd x86, and
 intel/amd x86_64 optimized versions? Some kind of version, compiled with
 CPUTYPE?=core2? Or some x86 and x86_64 versions with common optimizations
 for modern intel/amd? Furthermore, there could be difficulties compiling
 core/world with gcc45(46) because it's not a system compiler. But it's not
 a problem, we can compile core, world with default one, and use gcc45 for
 ports, shipped with base PC-BSD distribution. We can use not only march,
 mfpmath, but flto, and even -O3 (possibly). The errors/difficulties, I've
 met, compiling ports with gcc45: some compile good, some don't compile
 with flto, some refuse to compile with gcc45 at all. For an example, there
 would be erroneous verion of libtool, if you compile and install port
 libtool22 with cc set to gcc45. I havn't studied in deep this problem,
 just for an example. I don't remember, possibly it could be solved easily.
 But it don't have to build with gcc45, because it's not the system
 compiler (again). So, the only thing to build most of ports (may be there
 are other ways...) - use conditional set of flags, for problematic ports.
 Like in the attachment (make.conf example, possibly it's not so ideal,
 really. I'm newbie with advanced make.conf things :( ).

 Oh... Lot's of letters were written here. :) So. Writing all of the above,
 I've ment: It would be great to have such build. May be, kinda of
 "unofficial build". Even, if main developers have no time to spent to
 experimental builds, just an access to the build server (or, is there such
 access available nowadays, and I've missed it?) would be great, because
 building all of this on the desktop/home PC would consume time, and it'll
 be great to have build instructions.

 And one more question, josiaslg, did you mean also optimized PBIs? So, one
 more PBI for each "unofficial" build of PC-BSD... Hmmm.... If we follow
 the main builds of PBI's with the "unofficial", optimized one's, it would
 be less time/space consuming.

 So, developers! :)) What do u think?

-- 
Ticket URL: <https://trac.pcbsd.org/ticket/337#comment:1>
PC-BSD <http://trac.pcbsd.org>
PC-BSD Project Management