On 2/11/21 1:17 AM, Michał Górny wrote: > On Wed, 2021-02-10 at 19:51 +0100, Lars Wendler wrote: >> On Wed, 10 Feb 2021 19:57:48 +0200 Andreas K. Hüttel wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I'm announcing a new project here - "binhost" >>> >>> "The Gentoo Binhost project aims to provide readily installable, >>> precompiled packages for a subset of configurations, via central >>> binary package hosting. Currently we are still in the conceptual >>> planning stage. " >>> >>> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Binhost >>> >>> If you're interested in helping out, feel free to add yourself on the >>> wiki page. >>> >>> Note that I see actually *building* the packages not as the central >>> point of the project (that could be e.g. a side effect of a >>> tinderbox). I'm more concerned about >>> * what configurations should we use >>> * what portage features are still needed or need improvements (e.g. >>> binpkg signing and verification) >>> * how should hosting look like >>> * and how we can test this on a limited scale before it goes "into >>> production" >>> * ... >>> >>> Comments, ideas, flamebaits? :D >>> >>> Cheers, >>> Andreas >>> >> >> It would be great to improve portage speed with handling binpkgs. I >> already have my own binhost for a couple of Gentoo systems and even >> though these systems don't have to compile anything themselves, >> installing ~100 to ~200 binpkgs takes way more than an hour of >> installation time. Arch Linux' pacman only takes a fraction of this >> time for the very same task. >> I know that I compare apples with pears here but even reducing the >> current portage time by 50% would be a huge improvement. > > Is that really a problem? For me, Portage takes about an hour just to > do the dependency processing these days. In fact, building from sources > is now faster than dependency calculations.
The ratio of these times is dependent on the complexity of the dependencies involved, and so is the answer to your question. -- Thanks, Zac
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
