On Fri, 21 May 2010 13:19:44 +0200, Daniel Baumann <[email protected]>
wrote:
Hi,
Hello,
using tmpfs as easy as possible within live-helper would be nice
(optional, of course, since we can't know the amount of ram and the
image size to build) in order to speed up the build process a bit, but
to do that most effectively, the whole build-tree should be in the
tmpfs.
I agree that the build in live-helper could be a lot faster; yet I'm not
conviced using tmpfs is the right way to go (there are various other
opportunities for speed up - for one thing, the chroot/chroot device does
not help, etc.). But still ...
since we can't know the current directy before building, and to avoid
moving things arround in a hackish way, there's only one solution that i
can think of: moving everything except the config into build/, and
having build/ on a tmpfs.
I disagree. First, the tmpfs could only be useful for binary and chroot
(and probably .stage). I'm not sure you actually mean storing cache on
tmpfs - I always thought that was something that should survive the whole
build. Second, "moving things around in a hackish way" actually means some
5 commands - a mount, and two bind mounts, or, if you mind, symlinks. Are
you serious that changing locations almost everywhere is more appropriate
than this?
means, before the change, we have:
server4:/home/user# mkdir foo
server4:/home/user# cd foo/
server4:/home/user/foo# lh config && lh build
server4:/home/user/foo# ls
auto binary binary-hybrid.iso binary.list binary.packages cache
chroot config
server4:/home/user/foo#
and afterwards we'd have:
server4:/home/user# mkdir foo
server4:/home/user# cd foo/
server4:/home/user/foo# lh config && lh build
server4:/home/user/foo# ls
auto binary-hybrid.iso binary.list binary.packages build config
server4:/home/user/foo# cd build/
server4:/home/user/foo/build# ls
binary cache chroot
server4:/home/user/foo/build#
since this is quite a big change for those that do hackish stuff (for
those, that are using config/* properly, there will nothing change,
since the binaries are put in the same place as before)..
..what do you think about such a layout change?
I think it is unneeded, and will do nothing good, apart from introducing
bugs. There are enough of them, plus functionality defects (eg. grub+usb
is impossible) that would be worth fixing first.
Regards
Jiri Palecek
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/op.vc17n3beu2f...@debian
