| 1 |
On 2/10/21 10:51 AM, Lars Wendler wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 19:57:48 +0200 Andreas K. Hüttel wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> Hi all, |
| 5 |
>> |
| 6 |
>> I'm announcing a new project here - "binhost" |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> "The Gentoo Binhost project aims to provide readily installable, |
| 9 |
>> precompiled packages for a subset of configurations, via central |
| 10 |
>> binary package hosting. Currently we are still in the conceptual |
| 11 |
>> planning stage. " |
| 12 |
>> |
| 13 |
>> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Binhost |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
>> If you're interested in helping out, feel free to add yourself on the |
| 16 |
>> wiki page. |
| 17 |
>> |
| 18 |
>> Note that I see actually *building* the packages not as the central |
| 19 |
>> point of the project (that could be e.g. a side effect of a |
| 20 |
>> tinderbox). I'm more concerned about |
| 21 |
>> * what configurations should we use |
| 22 |
>> * what portage features are still needed or need improvements (e.g. |
| 23 |
>> binpkg signing and verification) |
| 24 |
>> * how should hosting look like |
| 25 |
>> * and how we can test this on a limited scale before it goes "into |
| 26 |
>> production" |
| 27 |
>> * ... |
| 28 |
>> |
| 29 |
>> Comments, ideas, flamebaits? :D |
| 30 |
>> |
| 31 |
>> Cheers, |
| 32 |
>> Andreas |
| 33 |
>> |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> It would be great to improve portage speed with handling binpkgs. I |
| 36 |
> already have my own binhost for a couple of Gentoo systems and even |
| 37 |
> though these systems don't have to compile anything themselves, |
| 38 |
> installing ~100 to ~200 binpkgs takes way more than an hour of |
| 39 |
> installation time. Arch Linux' pacman only takes a fraction of this |
| 40 |
> time for the very same task. |
| 41 |
> I know that I compare apples with pears here but even reducing the |
| 42 |
> current portage time by 50% would be a huge improvement. |
| 43 |
|
| 44 |
In order to maximize throughput, we have FEATURES="parallel-install" |
| 45 |
that for example allows one package's files to be merged while a |
| 46 |
pkg_{pre,post}{inst,rm} phase is running for an unrelated package that |
| 47 |
is in the merge queue. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
There's also FEATURES="-ebuild-locks" which allows privileged |
| 50 |
pkg_{pre,post}{inst,rm} phases to run concurrently with privileged |
| 51 |
phases of unrelated packages in the merge queue. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Ultimately, pkg_{pre,post}{inst,rm} phases could be the limiting factor |
| 54 |
here. I portage, we should eliminate calls to these phases when |
| 55 |
DEFINED_PHASES metadata indicated that they're not defined. |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
Also, FEATURES=preserve-libs introduces considerable overhead because it |
| 58 |
regenerates LinkageMapELF data structures for every merge. It would be |
| 59 |
much more efficient if it could incrementally update these data structures. |
| 60 |
-- |
| 61 |
Thanks, |
| 62 |
Zac |
Archives