| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
TanNewt
Retired Dev
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 340
Location: Seattle, WA
|
 Posted: Mon May 31, 2004 10:54 pm Post subject: Portage and LFS's SBU |
 |
|
Just an idea here. It would be nice to have a similar unit to the SBU in the portage database. For those of you who do not know what an SBU is here is a quote from the Linux From Scratch's 5.1 book online.
| Quote: | Most people would like to know beforehand approximately how long it takes to compile and install each package. But "Linux from Scratch" is built on so many different systems, it is not possible to give actual times that are anywhere near accurate: the biggest package (Glibc) won't take more than twenty minutes on the fastest systems, but will take something like three days on the slowest -- no kidding. So instead of giving actual times, we've come up with the idea of using the Static Binutils Unit (abbreviated to SBU).
It works like this: the first package you compile in this book is the statically linked Binutils in Chapter 5, and the time it takes to compile this package is what we call the Static Binutils Unit or SBU. All other compile times will be expressed relative to this time.
For example, consider a particular package whose compilation time is 4.5 SBUs. This means that if on your system it took 10 minutes to compile and install the static Binutils, then you know it will take approximately 45 minutes to build this package. Fortunately, most build times are much shorter than the one of Binutils.
Note that if the system compiler on your host is GCC-2 based, the SBUs listed may end up being somewhat understated. This is because the SBU is based on the very first package, compiled with the old GCC, while the rest of the system is compiled with the newer GCC-3.3.2 which is known to be approximately 30% slower.
Also note that SBUs don't work well for SMP-based machines. But if you're so lucky as to have multiple processors, chances are that your system is so fast that you won't mind. |
http://lfs.oregonstate.edu/lfs/view/5.1/chapter04/aboutsbus.html
I think it would be great to have. The linux From Scratch people have the same problem as Gentoo with varying compile times. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
codergeek42
Bodhisattva
Joined: 05 Apr 2004
Posts: 5142
Location: Anaheim, CA (USA)
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 2:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
With all duee respect, what's so bad about doing | Code: | | # time emerge <package> |
?
_________________
~~ Peter: Programmer, Mathematician, STEM & Free Software Advocate, Enlightened Agent, Transhumanist, Fedora contributor
Who am I? :: EFF & FSF |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nuggien
n00b
Joined: 25 Mar 2004
Posts: 33
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 8:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| codergeek42 wrote: | With all duee respect, what's so bad about doing | Code: | | # time emerge <package> |
? |
maybe you should actually read the post... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Brother Dysk
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 29 Sep 2003
Posts: 131
Location: Hong Kong SAR PRC
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 11:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Yeah, that's sure useful - time emerge xx. Then you can come back five hours and say, "Oh, that'll take five hours. Good thing I planned for that". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Genone
Retired Dev
Joined: 14 Mar 2003
Posts: 9537
Location: beyond the rim
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
old idea, nowhere near accurate because of CFLAGS, USE flags, many packages spend more time in unpacking/configure/copying than compiling, several other factors I forgot to mention.
Similar reasons why we won't implement a progressbar for portage anytime soon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TanNewt
Retired Dev
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 340
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2004 2:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Alright, cool. Just thought I'd throw that out there.  Now I know. Thanks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
placeholder
Advocate
Joined: 07 Feb 2004
Posts: 2500
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2004 3:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Good idea, but too bad it's not really possible. Maybe if the developers of the software included little time markers in the code, but I'd rather them get things developed better than add that.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
uglyb0b
Apprentice
Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Posts: 280
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 02, 2004 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Too many variables, and isn't half the fun of merging not knowing how long it's going to take? Like russian system roulette
_________________
Blog.
Linux geek and Mac whore. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Gentoo Chat
