Re: [gentoo-dev] New project: binhost

[Zac Medico]

On 2/13/21 4:53 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
> On 2/13/21 4:37 PM, Zac Medico wrote:
>> On 2/11/21 1:17 AM, Michał Górny wrote:
>>> On Wed, 2021-02-10 at 19:51 +0100, Lars Wendler wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 19:57:48 +0200 Andreas K. Hüttel wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm announcing a new project here - "binhost"
>>>>>
>>>>> "The Gentoo Binhost project aims to provide readily installable,
>>>>> precompiled packages for a subset of configurations, via central
>>>>> binary package hosting. Currently we are still in the conceptual
>>>>> planning stage. "
>>>>>
>>>>> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Binhost
>>>>>
>>>>> If you're interested in helping out, feel free to add yourself on the
>>>>> wiki page.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that I see actually *building* the packages not as the central
>>>>> point of the project (that could be e.g. a side effect of a
>>>>> tinderbox). I'm more concerned about
>>>>> * what configurations should we use
>>>>> * what portage features are still needed or need improvements (e.g.
>>>>> binpkg signing and verification)
>>>>> * how should hosting look like
>>>>> * and how we can test this on a limited scale before it goes "into
>>>>> production"
>>>>> * ...
>>>>>
>>>>> Comments, ideas, flamebaits? :D
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Andreas
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It would be great to improve portage speed with handling binpkgs. I
>>>> already have my own binhost for a couple of Gentoo systems and even
>>>> though these systems don't have to compile anything themselves,
>>>> installing ~100 to ~200 binpkgs takes way more than an hour of
>>>> installation time. Arch Linux' pacman only takes a fraction of this
>>>> time for the very same task.
>>>> I know that I compare apples with pears here but even reducing the
>>>> current portage time by 50% would be a huge improvement.
>>>
>>> Is that really a problem?  For me, Portage takes about an hour just to
>>> do the dependency processing these days.  In fact, building from sources
>>> is now faster than dependency calculations.
>>
>> The ratio of these times is dependent on the complexity of the
>> dependencies involved, and so is the answer to your question.
>
> Also, in the context of binary packages, dependencies calculations are
> generally simpler for binary packages because their USE conditionals and
> slot-operator := dependencies are frozen in a particular state. This
> dramatically reduces the search space involved in dependency calculation.

IUSE_RUNTIME will obviously introduce conditionals in binary package
dependencies, but we should welcome these conditionals because they will
provide useful flexibility.

I think IUSE_RUNTIME will be a very nice feature to have for project
binhost, since it will allow binary package dependencies to behave with
flexibility that more closely resembles the flexibility of ebuild
dependencies.
-- 
Thanks,
Zac