1 |
On Sat, 2003-09-06 at 15:45, David Sankel wrote: |
2 |
> I was afraid that it wouldn't be clear what I meant by this. I am not |
3 |
> suggesting that all files could be automatically overwritten, only files |
4 |
> that were not modified from the default by the user. For example the |
5 |
> file: |
6 |
> |
7 |
> /etc/X11/chooser.sh |
8 |
> |
9 |
> was never changed by a given user on a given system. It is the default for |
10 |
> the version they have. When a revision to the default is discovered, the |
11 |
> system will flag that file as being one that the user hasn't specialized. |
12 |
> In etc-update, there could be an option to update all flagged files |
13 |
> automatically. Does that make more sense? |
14 |
|
15 |
I think this is a great idea. I am tired of having to update files |
16 |
which I haven't even touched simply because they have changed a little |
17 |
since the last merge. |
18 |
|
19 |
> You are absolutely correct. Having something simple like 20/24 (currently |
20 |
> working on package XXX) is probably the best such a progress bar could do. |
21 |
> If the compilation does break, and that has been very rare in my |
22 |
> experience, the program could output the log of that failed compile for |
23 |
> inspection. I think this feature, being only an option, would be an |
24 |
> enhancement that wouldn't remove any features you are interested in. |
25 |
|
26 |
This is somewhat done now via the xterm titles. I personally find it |
27 |
annoying and turn it off. Having a progress bar for portage would annoy |
28 |
me to no end since as a developer I like to see what is going on with my |
29 |
compiles. If it were implemented as a FEATURE, I would have no problem |
30 |
with it. I also don't think it would be useful at all except in the |
31 |
case of merging multiple ebuilds at once. |
32 |
|
33 |
> I suggest they be left at whatever the non-source based distributions |
34 |
> leave them at. Perhaps I am misinformed about how much improvement one |
35 |
> gets with aggressive optimization flags. Could you point me somewhere in |
36 |
> the right direction? |
37 |
|
38 |
http://www.linuxgazette.com/issue88/piszcz.html |
39 |
|
40 |
Quite simply, test it yourself. The best way to test is to use a x86 |
41 |
GRP CD and install Gentoo. This is approximately equivalent to the |
42 |
build flags on other binary distributions. Run a bunch of benchmarks. |
43 |
Next reinstall the same machine using aggressive CFLAGS and run the same |
44 |
benchmarks. You'll see quite a dramatic difference in many things. The |
45 |
real thing is to realize what could possibly change by optimization. |
46 |
Binary size is usually larger with optimized code, since it is designed |
47 |
for fast execution rather than binary size. For example, a I/O |
48 |
benchmark would be generally worthless to test the speed increases of |
49 |
optimization, since you would be limited much more by the hardware than |
50 |
the code itself. |
51 |
|
52 |
-- |
53 |
Chris Gianelloni |
54 |
Developer, Gentoo Linux |
55 |
Games Team |
56 |
|
57 |
Is your power animal a penguin? |