| 1 |
On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 23:59:59 +0200 |
| 2 |
Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On 18/12/2014 04:45, Harry Putnam wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Is there any advantage one way or the other emerging firefox.bin vs |
| 6 |
> > firefox? |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Depends on your needs: |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> firefox: |
| 11 |
> - pro: you get all the USE flags |
| 12 |
> - pro: you don't get bundled libs from Mozilla, the ebuild can use |
| 13 |
> system libs |
| 14 |
> - pro: the compiled binaries are integrated into gentoo like other |
| 15 |
> ebuilds |
| 16 |
> - con: slow compiles. I have 8 i7 cores and 16G. the merge takes 20-35 |
| 17 |
> minutes... |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> firefox-bin: |
| 20 |
> - pro: fast install. It's a binary package |
| 21 |
> - con: you get all of Mozilla's bundled libs |
| 22 |
> - con: No USE, no choices. If Mozilla eg decides to ship with |
| 23 |
> pulseaudio, then that is what you must have on your end |
| 24 |
> - con: poor integration with the rest of your system. Files go where |
| 25 |
> Mozilla says they go, the devs can only do so much to make stuff |
| 26 |
> standard. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Those are good lists. The only thing I can think to add is that |
| 29 |
firefox-bin is built with "Profile Guided Optimization"; the firefox |
| 30 |
package has the pgo USE flag for that, but it's forced off because it |
| 31 |
doesn't work and upstream doesn't support it. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Building with PGO roughly doubles compile time, as firefox has to be |
| 34 |
built twice. I don't know what optimization gains there are. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
> As I see it, go with firefox unless you can't spend the cpu cycles to |
| 37 |
> build it locally. That's true of almost all -bin packages |
| 38 |
|
| 39 |
+1 |
Archives