| 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 |
Archives