Michael Shell wrote:
On Sat, 28 Oct 2017 10:52:23 -0500
Bruce Dubbs <[email protected]> wrote:
Michael Shell wrote:
Another, in my opinion better, option (given the enormous bloat of QT)
is WebkitGTK+ based browsers, ...
LOL. You have to be kidding.
Bruce,
Interesting ... and a surprise to me - I had based my opinion only
on my memory of the relative size of packages:
Qt-5.9.2 => Download size: 288 MB
WebKitGTK+-2.18.1 => Download size: 15 MB
After Qt's package size went over 100MB some time ago, I wrote its
developers off as having lost their mind.
Any ideas as to why Qt compiles so much faster than WebKitGTK
given the large disparity in the package sizes? Is the Qt package
including large amounts of code/data that is not complied under Linux,
but is still included due to the cross-platform nature of Qt?
In anycase, I do think an SBU of 27*4 = 108 is "doable" on an old
machine. So, the Qt browser route is also an option, if he can
(still) disable the use of SSE in Qt 5.
I cannot account for the disparity of size/build time. I just know that
Qt offers a whole lot more than just browsing, and includes a lot of docs
and examples.
My webkit log is 6005 lines long. Qt log is 38545 lines.
The count of g++ lines in Qt is 9863. The count of CXX lines in
webkitgtk-2.18.0 is 5339. That says nothing about the relative sizes or
complexity of the code. I do know that the Qt files are well done and
usually fairly small (but lots of embedded documentation for doxygen).
Perhaps qt does a lot more in parallel at -j4. </speculation>
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
