| 1 |
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 02:33:09PM +0200, hasufell wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 09/10/2015 02:25 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
> > |
| 4 |
> > gtk2+gtk3 in RAM at the same time has a higher memory footprint than |
| 5 |
> > either one alone. If any package uses one or the other, it will end |
| 6 |
> > up being loaded into RAM, so there is potentially value in using one |
| 7 |
> > of them exclusively. |
| 8 |
> > |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> So you are saying for the unlikely case that someone runs gentoo on a |
| 11 |
> desktop system where he cannot even compile gcc, llvm and others without |
| 12 |
> waiting for 2 weeks or setting up his on binhost, we have to provide a |
| 13 |
> backup-path for him, so that gtk3 is not loaded into his RAM? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
That was my situation until very recently. Firefox builds took ~6 hours. |
| 16 |
gcc took 2-3 hours. Even though gtk is not that big, it still took 15ish |
| 17 |
minutes for me to build. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
If upstream gives the option of gtk2 or gtk3, why shouldn't the ebuild? |
| 20 |
From the "I want a usable system with as little code as possible" and "I |
| 21 |
want a system tailored to my needs" standpoints, having only one version |
| 22 |
of gtk makes quite a bit of sense. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Alec |
Archives