1 |
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:41:41 -0800, Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> |
2 |
wrote: |
3 |
> On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 04:54:38PM +0100, Torsten Veller wrote: |
4 |
>> Can we please move the mips profiles from "dev" to "exp" in |
5 |
>> profiles/profiles.desc? |
6 |
>> |
7 |
>> |
8 |
>> The ~150 mips development profiles increase the time for a |
9 |
>> `repoman -d full` run in dev-perl/ from three to five minutes. That is |
10 |
>> an increase of roughly 66 percent. |
11 |
>> repoman further prints more than 2000 lines of output for two |
12 |
keywording |
13 |
>> problems. |
14 |
> |
15 |
> Quick pcheck visibility scan of the full tree, stats follow: |
16 |
> |
17 |
> mips profiles still enabled: |
18 |
> * 116191 seperate dependency issues, 1 line per profile/dependency |
19 |
> issue |
20 |
> * roughly 2m39s run time |
21 |
> |
22 |
> mips profiles disabled (leaving mips-irix however) |
23 |
> * 9550 seperate dependency issues, 1 line per profile/dependency issue |
24 |
> * roughly 1m54s run time. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> So... mips accounts for about 30% of the pcheck runtime, and *92%* of |
27 |
> known visibility issues. As for the runtime difference between |
28 |
> pcheck/repoman, pcheck has some tricks internally to reduce the # of |
29 |
> profiles it has to scan down to just the unique USE/mask set- I'd |
30 |
> expect the mips impact to be far larger w/out that trick in place. |
31 |
> |
32 |
> At the very least if it's going to be kept around, experimental or |
33 |
> not, the number of profiles in use there *really* needs reduction- |
34 |
> mips has roughly 117 profiles listed in profiles.desc out of 217- |
35 |
> literally ~54% of all dev/stable/experimental profiles. |
36 |
|
37 |
I agree, I wasn't sure why so many profiles were added[1] for a dead team |
38 |
(for all intensive purposes). Seems quite silly to me to leave them as |
39 |
'dev' status. If a member of the mips team would reply to this thread, that |
40 |
would be good. (and surprising to me :) |
41 |
|
42 |
I would guess that it would be far easier to work in an overlay at this |
43 |
point. I would also guess that if there are ANY mips users out there that |
44 |
they would have to use some other ACCEPT_KEYWORDS value because the shape |
45 |
of ~mips is so...bad. |
46 |
-Jeremy |
47 |
|
48 |
[1]: |
49 |
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/profiles/profiles.desc?r1=1.151&r2=1.152 |
50 |
|
51 |
> |
52 |
> Either way, stats to chew on. |
53 |
> ~harring |