"Manuel A. Fernandez Montecelo" writes:
> 2012/11/22 Alberto Luaces <alua...@udc.es>:
>>> Failed to build again, it looks like ~7GB isn't enough... will have to
>>> make more room to compile or try to grab the beefier machine soon.
>> Yes, looking at the build tree it says
>> $ du -sm
> I have tried with the other machine, and it built fine. Diff attached
> (I commited to VCS anyway). Since release managers approved with
> those changes enabled, I will go ahead later, but if you have the
> opportunity confirm that it's OK in the meantime, please do.
Yes, it looks good!
>> Nevertheless, I am starting to be worried about the size of the overall
>> project. I don't know if it is really worth to have the static version
>> of the library.
> I am not sure about the usefulness of the static libraries. In OGRE I
> had requests, but since upstream don't recommend it, it's easy for me
> to dismiss the request :-)
This time I'm the cuplrit. There was a whislist bug that asked for it,
and I did so. Now I regret doing that, given the amount of
computational power that it takes, specially for uncommon, embedded
platforms, and given the low benefit of just having them.
> I don't know about Loic, but I don't have much experience with the OSG
> community, so whatever you decide I'm fine with it. We can drop the
> static library just after the release and see the amount of complaints
> that it generates, and decide after that.
Just after the release. I agree.
> Or we can implement an option in rules, so people can easily build the
> static version if they set that option, but it's not built that way by
> default (similar to noopt, nostrip, etc).
That's also a sensible option, and could be carried simultaneously with
> About space used, I noticed a strange trend:
> In all of these architectures (no data for amd64 since the binary that
> we upload is used; and I can't bother to check all the rest), there's
> a dramatic drop from 3.0.1-1 to -2, to just 10% of the previous 3.*
> releases. I don't know what change triggered that, and I don't know
> why we need 7-8GB again, didn't look very much to it, but maybe it's
> because some of our C[XX]FLAGS settings overriding other OSG or CMake
I'm perplexed as well, will search a bit more to find any trace of
what's going on.
> I think that removing static could be a pragmatic measure in that
> sense, if static is of not much use for most people, and will also not
> make impossible the use of ccache (which I wished for very much in the
> last few days :-) ).
Indeed, it completely pollutes the cache.
Thanks a lot for your help!
Pkg-osg-devel mailing list