On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 23:59:59 +0200 Alan McKinnon <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 18/12/2014 04:45, Harry Putnam wrote: > > Is there any advantage one way or the other emerging firefox.bin vs > > firefox? > > Depends on your needs: > > firefox: > - pro: you get all the USE flags > - pro: you don't get bundled libs from Mozilla, the ebuild can use > system libs > - pro: the compiled binaries are integrated into gentoo like other > ebuilds > - con: slow compiles. I have 8 i7 cores and 16G. the merge takes 20-35 > minutes... > > firefox-bin: > - pro: fast install. It's a binary package > - con: you get all of Mozilla's bundled libs > - con: No USE, no choices. If Mozilla eg decides to ship with > pulseaudio, then that is what you must have on your end > - con: poor integration with the rest of your system. Files go where > Mozilla says they go, the devs can only do so much to make stuff > standard. Those are good lists. The only thing I can think to add is that firefox-bin is built with "Profile Guided Optimization"; the firefox package has the pgo USE flag for that, but it's forced off because it doesn't work and upstream doesn't support it. Building with PGO roughly doubles compile time, as firefox has to be built twice. I don't know what optimization gains there are. > As I see it, go with firefox unless you can't spend the cpu cycles to > build it locally. That's true of almost all -bin packages +1
