[Pkg-bitcoin-devel] miners

[Dmitry Smirnov]

On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 05:57:53 Scott Howard wrote:
> Since cgminer is a fork of cpuminer, and is more actively maintained
> than cpuminer - do you think it would be best to just have cgminer?

I think there is a misunderstanding here. "cgminer" and "cpuminer" are two 
completely different projects with different features. I'm not sure if they 
share any code, at least not much.


> Are there any features in cgminer that are not present in cpuminer?

Yes, plenty. For example GPU (OpenCL) mining.


> If
> there are, could we possibly patch cgminer to include those changes?

No, that would not be possible.


> Let me know what you think. I think Debian would have the same benefit
> from just have cgminer as it would from having both packages, so
> perhaps we should just use cgminer.

"cgminer" have more features but "cpuminer" have advantage of speed in case of 
CPU mining as well (I think) it's better suited for litecoin mining.


> For license reviews, I've just started using CDBS's license checking
> targets, which are very helpful:
> 
> $ make -f /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/utils.mk debian/stamp-copyright-check
> 
> will scan all the files and output a DEP-5 formatted
> copyright_newhints file which you can use as a starting point. If you
> keep that _newhints file as copyright_hints and run the CDBS check
> again it will find what files have changed or been added and try to
> figure out the license and copyright from the header. It's a nice way
> to keep up with undocumented upstream changes

Thank you for hints. :)
I tried this in past but found _hints files to be not useful for new upstream 
releases. Usually I manually review old and new orig tars using kdiff3...

-- 
Regards,
Dmitry.