On Tue, 16 Mar 2004, Dan Kegel wrote: > Dag Wieers wrote: > > > I don't agree that RPM is useless on non-linux boxes. RPM runs on all Unix > > boxes and even in cygwin. Even when you're not using RPM as a package > > manager, you can still use RPM SPEC files (or source packages) to build > > binaries for a specific platform. > > Beware. I did package up these toolchains as RPM files, and > the resulting packages were so large they took 15 minutes to > install. Unpacking a .tgz, by comparison, took about 5 minutes. > Maybe rpm is more optimized by now. If not, this is probably > an easy performance bug to fix.
Hmmm, tgz takes 5 minutes ? What size are we talking about ? I'd guessed it was 1 cross-compiler per architecture. About 3Mb in size each. I'd go for 1 package for each compiler (as most people want to select their own set of compilers depending on the hardware they have). > It's even worse when you try to use alien to install these > large RPMs on Debian. It's way slow, and I've seen people > run out of disk space with the extra temp copy. Strange, as RPM was always considered much faster and less memory hungry as dpkg in handling packages. I remember the Debian project considering of moving to a database backend too, so with alien I guess you have to add that up. > > I agree with you that it probably isn't the best solution for Windows > > though. My interest is more in the general case. (and Red Hat > > specifically) > > Unless the performance issues are addressed, you may find RPMs > aren't the best way to handle these large packages. > > By the way, since there are so many combinations of processor, gcc version, > and glibc version, it would be hard to build all the RPMs for those > combinations. True. But there's no need to compile all combinations and RPM may help in building for different architectures too. I haven't looked at your script, but I'd guess RPM does a lot of things already that you have in your script. (build and target specification, compiler-flags, ...) > If you're supporting a stable of engineers working on the same > project, it's worth building the combinations you need once > (possibly as an RPM, if that's how your site likes things). > > But Fedora probably wouldn't want to include all the possible > RPMs my script can spit out. > This is a case where package managers have a bit of > a disadvantage compared to an engineer downloading the build script > from http://kegel.com/crosstool and just building the damn thing themselves. I respectfully disagree. I see what you mean, but even Source RPM packages are very handy to build for different targets with different options from a single source. So even when I wouldn't have the combination some engineer need, I guess if crafted good, a single SRPM would suffice. So when I find the time I'm going to look into your tool and see how I can take advantage of it as I've been always interested in providing this. Thanks Dan, -- dag wieers, [EMAIL PROTECTED], http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] __ distcc mailing list http://distcc.samba.org/ To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/distcc
