Gentoo Archives: gentoo-dev

From: "Michał Górny" <mgorny@g.o>
To: gentoo-dev@l.g.o
Cc: ferringb@×××××.com, axs@g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] example conversion of gentoo-x86 current deps to unified dependencies
Date: Sun, 16 Sep 2012 07:57:40
Message-Id: 20120916095627.4cccdc10@pomiocik.lan
In Reply to: [gentoo-dev] example conversion of gentoo-x86 current deps to unified dependencies by Brian Harring
1 On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 18:20:26 -0700
2 Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote:
3
4 > On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 12:03:36AM +0200, Micha?? G??rny wrote:
5 > > On Sat, 15 Sep 2012 13:33:18 -0700
6 > > Brian Harring <ferringb@×××××.com> wrote:
7 > > > To demonstrate the gain of this, we basically take the existing
8 > > > tree's deps, and re-render it into a unified DEPENDENCIES form.
9 > >
10 > > But in order to do this, we first have to decide exactly what kind
11 > > of dependencies do we want to have. Then convert the tree to
12 > > a separate-variable form with new dependencies. Then we can compare
13 > > it with the DEPENDENCIES form and decide which one is better.
14 >
15 > Funny you mentioned that, I just finished tweaking pquery to generate
16 > real world example unified dependencies; these *are* accurate, just
17 > to be clear.
18
19 But consider that for example Zac & AxS (correct me if I recall it
20 correctly) considered making changing the meaning of RDEPEND to install
21 them before the build, thus effectively making 'build,run' useless.
22
23 > Total cache savings from doing this for a full tree conversion, for
24 > our existing md5-cache format is 2.73MB (90 byes per cache entry).
25 > Calculating the savings from the ebuild/eclass standpoint is
26 > dependent on how the deps are built up, so I skipped that.
27
28 You're storing the cache in a tarball?
29
30 --
31 Best regards,
32 Michał Górny

Attachments

File name MIME type
signature.asc application/pgp-signature

Replies