On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 11:51:32AM +, Fernando Meira wrote:
I have a P4-2.4GHz laptop.
I forgot to say that the estimation time was made by genlop. And was quite
wrong! It took something like 11h to compile 112 packages, (though I've
interrupted while compiling gcc-3.3.6.. so it had to
On 8/25/05, Willie Wong [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 11:51:32AM +, Fernando Meira wrote: I have a P4-2.4GHz laptop. I forgot to say that the estimation time was made by genlop. And was quite wrong! It took something like 11h to compile 112 packages, (though I've
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 05:33:14PM +, Fernando Meira wrote:
I would say that most of the emerged packages were emerged before.. but
maybe not that much so that genlop could be accurate. Also, a new compiler
was being used.. no idea how much can that change the performance.
That might.
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 14:51:33 -0400, Willie Wong wrote:
BUT!!! It seems that there is a bug with genlop and newer versions of
portage because some issues with a sandbox lockfile. Search for
genlop sandbox on bugs.gentoo.org for more info. In any case, for
the time being, until the bug is
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 11:03:47PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 14:51:33 -0400, Willie Wong wrote:
BUT!!! It seems that there is a bug with genlop and newer versions of
portage because some issues with a sandbox lockfile. Search for
genlop sandbox on bugs.gentoo.org for
5 matches
Mail list logo