| 1 |
Tobias Klausmann posted on Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:03:59 +0200 as excerpted: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012, Duncan wrote: |
| 4 |
>> Now, for worst-case comparison, on the same machine, what's the |
| 5 |
>> respective times for a full systemd build? (I'm not saying actually |
| 6 |
>> merge it, just configure/compile, plus see the next paragraph.) |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> I think my first set of numbers illustrates that: just running "make" |
| 9 |
> should be a full build, AIUI. For that scenario (and the machine in |
| 10 |
> question, the factor was somewhere between 9 and 10 times slower for a |
| 11 |
> full build. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
You're correct. I was misinterpreting those first numbers as running |
| 14 |
what the ebuild ran, but manually, not as a full "make". So naturally I |
| 15 |
came to the wrong conclusion about them and figured the full systemd |
| 16 |
build would be even worse! |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
Thanks for patiently pointing out (again) what they /actually/ covered, |
| 19 |
thereby setting me straight. I will try to read a bit more carefully, |
| 20 |
next time. =:^\ |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
-- |
| 23 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
| 24 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
| 25 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
Archives