| 1 |
On Mon, 8 Mar 2021 15:44:38 -0700, Grant Taylor wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 3/8/21 3:29 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 4 |
> > With hindsight, removing firefox, thunderbird and libreoffice and |
| 5 |
> > replacing them with their -bin counterparts at the start of the |
| 6 |
> > process would have saved much time. You could switch back to the |
| 7 |
> > source options once the system is up to date. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> You're probably correct. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> However I don't think I would do that even if I had known / thought |
| 12 |
> about doing so. Partially because changing things was questionable at |
| 13 |
> / near the start and partially because this was about possibility, not |
| 14 |
> efficiency.It would ve to be done |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
It would have to be done before the first update, when the repo was set |
| 17 |
to a date just after the last update. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> > How did you manage gcc upgrades, did you run gcc-config manually |
| 20 |
> > whenever gcc was updated? |
| 21 |
> |
| 22 |
> Is "I ignored them and let emerge deal with it" count? I did see gcc |
| 23 |
> upgrades along the way. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
You can rephrase that as "I left it at the default", which is an |
| 26 |
acceptable answer :) |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> I don't remember what it was at the start, probably 8.<something> or |
| 29 |
> 9.<something>. I did see 9.3 somewhere along the way. gcc -v says |
| 30 |
> that 10.2.0 is currently installed. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
It means you probably spent a lot of time compile gcc versions only to |
| 33 |
carry on using the old version, but as you said, this wasn't about |
| 34 |
efficiency. You were going to emerge -e @world at the end anyway, which |
| 35 |
would get everything built with the latest toolchain. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
> > Do you feel it was worth the effort of updating for every day of the |
| 38 |
> > git history? |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> I don't know if it was worth the effort or not. I initially did one |
| 41 |
> day at a time while testing the waters and going from theory to some |
| 42 |
> practical experience of the method. |
| 43 |
> |
| 44 |
> Very quickly I used a different version of e (1 or 2) that took the |
| 45 |
> date as a parameter. My command line was calling e with the date |
| 46 |
> derived from the d variable and then decrementing the d variable after |
| 47 |
> the e function finished. I.e. |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> e $(date +%Y-%m-%d -d "$d days ago"); $((d=$d-1)) |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
> I would let that run, deal with any results, then hit the up arrow and |
| 52 |
> enter. |
| 53 |
> |
| 54 |
> I just let that process continue for a while. Then at some point I |
| 55 |
> optimized it into e3 and ran that for a while. Then I optimized that |
| 56 |
> into the while e3; do true; done loop. |
| 57 |
|
| 58 |
Most of the effort for you was developing the procedure. All the real |
| 59 |
effort was left to the computer. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
> But I stuck with single day steps mostly from inertia. It was working. |
| 62 |
> So ... stick with it. |
| 63 |
> |
| 64 |
> > Would a larger increment have saved time, or did you think minimising |
| 65 |
> > the number of issues to deal with after each emerge was more |
| 66 |
> > important? |
| 67 |
> |
| 68 |
> Maybe. If anything, it would have saved the time for emerge to process |
| 69 |
> all of it's meta data. Much like an initial emerge vs an emerge |
| 70 |
> --resume. But again, this was about the viability of the process, not |
| 71 |
> the efficiency thereof. |
| 72 |
> |
| 73 |
> I probably could have gone with a week at a time. I don't know if that |
| 74 |
> would have helped or not. I don't think I would go with more than a |
| 75 |
> week with a largely automated process. |
| 76 |
|
| 77 |
I was thinking of a week max. |
| 78 |
|
| 79 |
|
| 80 |
-- |
| 81 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 82 |
|
| 83 |
Distrust any enterprise that requires new clothes. - Henry David Thoreau |
| 84 |
(1817-1862) |
Archives