On Mon, 8 Mar 2021 15:44:38 -0700, Grant Taylor wrote: > On 3/8/21 3:29 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote: > > With hindsight, removing firefox, thunderbird and libreoffice and > > replacing them with their -bin counterparts at the start of the > > process would have saved much time. You could switch back to the > > source options once the system is up to date. > > You're probably correct. > > However I don't think I would do that even if I had known / thought > about doing so. Partially because changing things was questionable at > / near the start and partially because this was about possibility, not > efficiency.It would ve to be done
It would have to be done before the first update, when the repo was set to a date just after the last update. > > How did you manage gcc upgrades, did you run gcc-config manually > > whenever gcc was updated? > > Is "I ignored them and let emerge deal with it" count? I did see gcc > upgrades along the way. You can rephrase that as "I left it at the default", which is an acceptable answer :) > I don't remember what it was at the start, probably 8.<something> or > 9.<something>. I did see 9.3 somewhere along the way. gcc -v says > that 10.2.0 is currently installed. It means you probably spent a lot of time compile gcc versions only to carry on using the old version, but as you said, this wasn't about efficiency. You were going to emerge -e @world at the end anyway, which would get everything built with the latest toolchain. > > Do you feel it was worth the effort of updating for every day of the > > git history? > > I don't know if it was worth the effort or not. I initially did one > day at a time while testing the waters and going from theory to some > practical experience of the method. > > Very quickly I used a different version of e (1 or 2) that took the > date as a parameter. My command line was calling e with the date > derived from the d variable and then decrementing the d variable after > the e function finished. I.e. > > e $(date +%Y-%m-%d -d "$d days ago"); $((d=$d-1)) > > I would let that run, deal with any results, then hit the up arrow and > enter. > > I just let that process continue for a while. Then at some point I > optimized it into e3 and ran that for a while. Then I optimized that > into the while e3; do true; done loop. Most of the effort for you was developing the procedure. All the real effort was left to the computer. > But I stuck with single day steps mostly from inertia. It was working. > So ... stick with it. > > > Would a larger increment have saved time, or did you think minimising > > the number of issues to deal with after each emerge was more > > important? > > Maybe. If anything, it would have saved the time for emerge to process > all of it's meta data. Much like an initial emerge vs an emerge > --resume. But again, this was about the viability of the process, not > the efficiency thereof. > > I probably could have gone with a week at a time. I don't know if that > would have helped or not. I don't think I would go with more than a > week with a largely automated process. I was thinking of a week max. -- Neil Bothwick Distrust any enterprise that requires new clothes. - Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862)
pgp7BOgh2uzc5.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
