On Thu, Aug 14, 2008 at 11:41 AM, Alan Bram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Jason and Max, > > Thanks for your responses. > > From Jason: > > > > As an experiment, I created a new repo with "darcs init --darcs-2", > > > and then simply imported the latest versions of all of the files and > > > directories. In other words, no history: this new repo has exactly > > > one patch in it. > > > > Presumably you want the history though right? Did you do it this way > just > > as a benchmark test? > > Yes. I first tried (1) running darcs2 on my old repo, (2) converting > my old repo. But my repos have a lot of history, and a couple of the > patches have been huge; so I thought it might be less demanding on > darcs just to try the simpler experiment. I seem to recall reading somewhere that 'darcs convert' is resource intensive, but I was able to, as an experiment, convert all the repositories on code.haskell.org to darcs2 format without any hitches and for over 100 repositories the total process took less than 20 minutes. Given that your repository is so large your mileage may vary. > > We've identified an issue with some versions of GHC producing darcs > binaries > > that are really slow at whatsnew. It seems that ghc 6.6.x and ghc 6.8.3 > are > > not affect. Specifically, ghc 6.8.2 seems to generate the slow darcs on > > several platforms. It would be good if we could rule out this > possibility. > > Hmm, that may well be it. I'm using the darcs2 that is packaged with > Debian Lenny. I don't know exactly how it was built (is there some > sort of "darcs --version" command that can tell?). But I do also know > that the version of GHC that ships with Lenny is 6.8.2 -- so that > sounds like a pretty good guess. I don't maintain the debian package or know much about it. > > I guess I could try first downloading and building GHC 6.8.3, and then > trying to build darcs. If I do that, should I use darcs 2.0.2 > release, or get the very latest darcs from its repo? (Except that > building darcs from its repo rather than a tarball is probably harder, > right?) Building darcs on debian with the GHC from apt is harder than it should be, but it's still pretty trivial. Sometimes the configure script won't catch a missing package and you'll be in the middle of a make before you realize you need to install something else -- but I seem to recall Eric fixing this in the latest version from http://darcs.net. If you installed GHC some other way, and it sounds like you might, then it should build with the default configuration no hitches. If not, let us know and we'll get it squared away. I recently installed the GHC linux binary from their website on a lenny machine and found that because it's built on fedora core you have to make two or three symlinks to appease ld. Nothing big though, all the files were there just the pathes were not what GHC was built with. And yes, I would try with the latest darcs. I think it should be quite safe in this case. We'll continue to work on performance issues on our end. Let us know if you have any new observations or upgrading ghc/darcs makes a noticable difference. Thanks again. Jason
_______________________________________________ darcs-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/darcs-users
