| 1 |
On 23/02/12 12:44, Mick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Thursday 23 Feb 2012 10:22:40 Willie WY Wong wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 07:22:27PM -0500, Penguin Lover Philip Webb |
| 4 |
> squawked: |
| 5 |
>>> I compiled FF 10.0.1 on amd64 without any problems : |
| 6 |
>>> it needed 3,61 GB disk space for the link stage |
| 7 |
>>> & most/all of my 2 GB memory. |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> Argh. 3.6 diskspace and 2G memory? I guess it is finally getting to |
| 10 |
>> the point that my laptop cannot build firefox. Time to switch to the |
| 11 |
>> -bin I guess. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> I've only got something like 625M RAM and around 4G disk space (for |
| 14 |
> var/portage). I used 750M from that 4G for adding swap. Eventually FF |
| 15 |
> compiled fine. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> The irony is that older boxen which would benefit most from building from |
| 18 |
> source are constrained in resources to achieve this and have to resort to |
| 19 |
> installing bin packages. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
I doubt that the bin package will be slower than the one compiled from |
| 22 |
source. I predict the reverse, in fact. The bin package will perform |
| 23 |
better. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Why don't you test it with an online browser benchmark? You can |
| 26 |
quickpkg the current installed version, emerge the -bin version. You |
| 27 |
can later emerge -C the -bin version and emerge -K the one you quickpkg'ed. |
Archives