| 1 |
On Sunday 07 September 2003 09:58, Rutger Lubbers wrote: |
| 2 |
> > On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 21:50:42 +0200 |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > Marius Mauch <genone@××××××.de> wrote: |
| 5 |
> >> A accurate progress bar is nearly impossible as compile times differ |
| 6 |
> >> from package to package |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> > Maybe maintainers could fill in the ebuilds a kind of approximative |
| 9 |
> > compile time from their experience, which would be relative to a |
| 10 |
> > well know reference time (a kernel compilation with default options, or |
| 11 |
> > something like this). It doesn't need to be very accurate. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> One could easily obtain those compile times from the emerge log file. |
| 14 |
> See http://ripat.xs4all.nl/gentoo/stats/ (parse_log.py) for an |
| 15 |
> implementation. |
| 16 |
> Perhaps this can be made part of the gentoo-stats package. |
| 17 |
> |
| 18 |
> Rutger |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I believe the only viable way to get reasonable estimates is to count the |
| 21 |
amount of gcc/g++/whatever compiler invocations from the make log for most |
| 22 |
options, and use those. That will only give an intra-package idea though. The |
| 23 |
difference in compilation length for files can differ a lot between different |
| 24 |
packages, esp. the difference between gcc and g++ can be big if lots of |
| 25 |
headers get pulled in. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Paul |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
Paul de Vrieze |
| 31 |
Gentoo Developer |
| 32 |
Mail: pauldv@g.o |
| 33 |
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net |
Archives