| 1 |
On Saturday, September 6, 2003, at 03:46 PM, Thomas de Grenier de |
| 2 |
Latour wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Sat, 6 Sep 2003 21:50:42 +0200 |
| 5 |
> Marius Mauch <genone@××××××.de> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> A accurate progress bar is nearly impossible as compile times differ |
| 9 |
>> from package to package |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Maybe maintainers could fill in the ebuilds a kind of approximative |
| 12 |
> compile time from their experience, which would be relative to a |
| 13 |
> well know reference time (a kernel compilation with default options, or |
| 14 |
> something like this). It doesn't need to be very accurate. |
| 15 |
Eh, wouldn't hold or be particularly accurate, mainly since I/O, proc |
| 16 |
speed, and available memory (let alone if another job is running in the |
| 17 |
background and hogging cycles) are too many variables (imo) to try and |
| 18 |
factor out. |
| 19 |
Someone a while back had a setup such that they parsed the makefile, |
| 20 |
figuring out the number of actions (gcc calls, ar calls, mv/cp/install |
| 21 |
commands), and tracked progress that way. Strikes me as the better |
| 22 |
way, although some packages weren't able to be parsed correctly |
| 23 |
resulting in a compilation progress reading at rather off values like |
| 24 |
1100% and counting... |
| 25 |
~bdh |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> |
| 29 |
> -- |
| 30 |
> TGL. |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
> -- |
| 33 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |
Archives