Tobias Klausmann posted on Thu, 30 Aug 2012 09:03:59 +0200 as excerpted:
> On Thu, 30 Aug 2012, Duncan wrote:
>> Now, for worst-case comparison, on the same machine, what's the
>> respective times for a full systemd build? (I'm not saying actually
>> merge it, just configure/compile, plus see the
Hi!
On Thu, 30 Aug 2012, Duncan wrote:
> Now, for worst-case comparison, on the same machine, what's the
> respective times for a full systemd build? (I'm not saying actually
> merge it, just configure/compile, plus see the next paragraph.)
I think my first set of numbers illustrates that: ju
Mart Raudsepp posted on Thu, 30 Aug 2012 07:27:48 +0300 as excerpted:
> Geode LX700 (433MHz) with 256MB RAM MAKEOPTS=-j2 (single core system)
> gcc (Gentoo 4.5.2 p1.1, pie-0.4.5) 4.5.2
>
> ebuild prepare done before as well.
>
> 1. time ebuild foo configure — real time value
> 2. time ebuild fo
Walter Dnes posted on Wed, 29 Aug 2012 21:19:13 -0400 as excerpted:
> Note that a fork will have to be be "bug-compatable" to Redhat's
> version, just like DR-DOS had to be bug-compatable to MS-DOS, way back
> when. And what happens when that "compatability" requires not just
> systemd and dbus
On N, 1970-01-01 at 00:00 +, Tobias Klausmann wrote:
> Hi!
>
> On Wed, 29 Aug 2012, William Hubbs wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 01:57:48PM +0200, Tobias Klausmann wrote:
> > > As a first crude datapoint, I compared the build times
> > > (configure+make) of udev-171-r6 and -188 on our dev
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 07:37:49AM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote
> What I see as the most likely thing to lead to change is if/when
> GnomeOS actually starts to exist. When you can't run Gnome without
> systemd I'd expect to see a lot more Gentoo users running it. Then
> again, if Gnome jumps the sh
Hi!
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012, William Hubbs wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 01:57:48PM +0200, Tobias Klausmann wrote:
> > As a first crude datapoint, I compared the build times
> > (configure+make) of udev-171-r6 and -188 on our dev Alpha. This
> > is a machine that's on the speedier side of off-main
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 05:12:19PM +0200, Vaeth wrote:
> > I doubt that most people consider udev's stand-alone build-time a big
> > issue.
>
> The real issue is not the build-time but the dependencies needed
> at build-time (and in future versions perhaps also at run-time):
> Currently, these are
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 01:57:48PM +0200, Tobias Klausmann wrote:
> As a first crude datapoint, I compared the build times
> (configure+make) of udev-171-r6 and -188 on our dev Alpha. This
> is a machine that's on the speedier side of off-mainstream
> architecures, but as a datapoint, it should be
I doubt that most people consider udev's stand-alone build-time a big
issue.
The real issue is not the build-time but the dependencies needed
at build-time (and in future versions perhaps also at run-time):
Currently, these are essentially libcap and dbus.
Now that some projects (e.g. hardened
Hi!
On Wed, 29 Aug 2012, Duncan wrote:
> So in practice, just what are the sorts of times, relative to stand-alone-
> build udev, we're talking about? In all this discussion, what, hundreds
> of posts by now?, I've not seen ANYONE actually ask, let alone answer,
> THAT. But it would seem to b
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 6:35 AM, Duncan <1i5t5.dun...@cox.net> wrote:
> And
> by 2-3 years out, if Linux/FLOSS history is any guide, the whole
> ecosystem will look different, and we'll have a whole list of new changes
> and challenges to worry about,
Agreed. I suspect the status quo will remain
Ben de Groot posted on Wed, 29 Aug 2012 13:06:29 +0800 as excerpted:
> For now udev is still usable without systemd, even tho upstream is
> making it difficult to build udev separately (and avoid unnecessary
> build-time dependencies). Upstream is also unwilling to work with us to
> make this easi
13 matches
Mail list logo
