[julia-users] Re: Why is Julia 0.5 built from source almost twice as large (on disk) as Julia 0.4?
I'm now down to 2,2G ./julia-0.4 1,7G ./julia-0.5 which is good enough to stop the low disk space warnings :D I'll be eagerly awaiting that PR, Jameson! ;) Thanks, all! // T On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 6:19:23 PM UTC+2, Jameson wrote: > > Yes, you can delete anything old (the same goes for usr-staging and > deps/srccache). I've also been slowly developing a PR that will allow the > build system to automatically erase the build directories after its > finished with them, but it's not ready yet. But someday... > > > > On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 5:33:50 AM UTC-4, Tomas Lycken wrote: >> >> Thanks for the replies. >> >> Is it safe to assume that anything in deps/build that exists in multiple >> versions, is only needed in the latest of those? For instance, I have >> >> ``` >> 159M deps/build/llvm-3.3 >> 318M deps/build/llvm-3.7.1 >> 881M deps/build/openblas-12ab1804b6ebcd38b26960d65d254314d8bc33d6 >> 943M deps/build/openblas >> ``` >> >> where it seems I could shave off a GB or so by deleting `llvm-3.3` and >> `openblas-`. `deps/srccache` is another 650 MB, can that also be >> deleted? >> >> My main reason for building from source rather than using the binaries is >> that now and then I stumble on something I want to investigate and/or >> improve in base, and the threshold for actually filing a PR is much lower >> if I already have the code I'm running locally. Once 0.5 is out for real >> I'll probably drop the source tree for 0.4, so "temporarily" freeing up a >> couple of gigs by deleting build intermediates is good enough for now. >> >> // T >> >> On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 10:49:38 AM UTC+2, Andreas Lobinger >> wrote: >>> >>> Hello colleague, >>> >>> On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 10:11:46 AM UTC+2, Tomas Lycken wrote: Both instances of Julia are runnable, so I don’t think I deleted something I shouldn’t have in either folder. What has changed to make Julia 0.5 so big? Are there any build artifacts I can/should prune to reduce this footprint? >>> my guess it's some cumulative build artefacts: >>> >>> lobi@orange4:~/julia05/deps$ du -sh * >>> 8,0Karpack.mk >>> 12K blas.mk >>> 4,8Gbuild >>> 508Kchecksums >>> 4,0Kdsfmt.mk >>> 8,0Kfftw.mk >>> 4,0Kgfortblas.alias >>> 8,0Kgfortblas.c >>> 4,0Kgmp.mk >>> 4,0KlibdSFMT.def >>> 4,0Klibgit2.mk >>> 4,0Klibgit2.version >>> 4,0Klibssh2.mk >>> 4,0Klibssh2.version >>> 4,0Klibuv.mk >>> 4,0Klibuv.version >>> 20K llvm.mk >>> 4,0Kllvm-ver.make >>> 8,0KMakefile >>> 4,0Kmbedtls.mk >>> 4,0Kmpfr.mk >>> 4,0KNATIVE.cmake >>> 4,0Kobjconv.mk >>> 4,0Kopenblas.version >>> 4,0Kopenlibm.mk >>> 4,0Kopenlibm.version >>> 4,0Kopenspecfun.mk >>> 4,0Kopenspecfun.version >>> 4,0Kpatchelf.mk >>> 328Kpatches >>> 4,0Kpcre.mk >>> 2,0Gsrccache >>> 8,0Ksuitesparse.mk >>> 4,0KSuiteSparse_wrapper.c >>> 20K tools >>> 4,0Kunwind.mk >>> 4,0Kutf8proc.mk >>> 4,0Kutf8proc.version >>> 384Kvalgrind >>> 4,0KVersions.make >>> 4,0Kvirtualenv.mk >>> >>>
[julia-users] Re: Why is Julia 0.5 built from source almost twice as large (on disk) as Julia 0.4?
Yes, you can delete anything old (the same goes for usr-staging and deps/srccache). I've also been slowly developing a PR that will allow the build system to automatically erase the build directories after its finished with them, but it's not ready yet. But someday... On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 5:33:50 AM UTC-4, Tomas Lycken wrote: > > Thanks for the replies. > > Is it safe to assume that anything in deps/build that exists in multiple > versions, is only needed in the latest of those? For instance, I have > > ``` > 159M deps/build/llvm-3.3 > 318M deps/build/llvm-3.7.1 > 881M deps/build/openblas-12ab1804b6ebcd38b26960d65d254314d8bc33d6 > 943M deps/build/openblas > ``` > > where it seems I could shave off a GB or so by deleting `llvm-3.3` and > `openblas-`. `deps/srccache` is another 650 MB, can that also be > deleted? > > My main reason for building from source rather than using the binaries is > that now and then I stumble on something I want to investigate and/or > improve in base, and the threshold for actually filing a PR is much lower > if I already have the code I'm running locally. Once 0.5 is out for real > I'll probably drop the source tree for 0.4, so "temporarily" freeing up a > couple of gigs by deleting build intermediates is good enough for now. > > // T > > On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 10:49:38 AM UTC+2, Andreas Lobinger wrote: >> >> Hello colleague, >> >> On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 10:11:46 AM UTC+2, Tomas Lycken wrote: >>> >>> Both instances of Julia are runnable, so I don’t think I deleted >>> something I shouldn’t have in either folder. >>> >>> What has changed to make Julia 0.5 so big? Are there any build artifacts >>> I can/should prune to reduce this footprint? >>> >> my guess it's some cumulative build artefacts: >> >> lobi@orange4:~/julia05/deps$ du -sh * >> 8,0Karpack.mk >> 12K blas.mk >> 4,8Gbuild >> 508Kchecksums >> 4,0Kdsfmt.mk >> 8,0Kfftw.mk >> 4,0Kgfortblas.alias >> 8,0Kgfortblas.c >> 4,0Kgmp.mk >> 4,0KlibdSFMT.def >> 4,0Klibgit2.mk >> 4,0Klibgit2.version >> 4,0Klibssh2.mk >> 4,0Klibssh2.version >> 4,0Klibuv.mk >> 4,0Klibuv.version >> 20K llvm.mk >> 4,0Kllvm-ver.make >> 8,0KMakefile >> 4,0Kmbedtls.mk >> 4,0Kmpfr.mk >> 4,0KNATIVE.cmake >> 4,0Kobjconv.mk >> 4,0Kopenblas.version >> 4,0Kopenlibm.mk >> 4,0Kopenlibm.version >> 4,0Kopenspecfun.mk >> 4,0Kopenspecfun.version >> 4,0Kpatchelf.mk >> 328Kpatches >> 4,0Kpcre.mk >> 2,0Gsrccache >> 8,0Ksuitesparse.mk >> 4,0KSuiteSparse_wrapper.c >> 20K tools >> 4,0Kunwind.mk >> 4,0Kutf8proc.mk >> 4,0Kutf8proc.version >> 384Kvalgrind >> 4,0KVersions.make >> 4,0Kvirtualenv.mk >> >>
[julia-users] Re: Why is Julia 0.5 built from source almost twice as large (on disk) as Julia 0.4?
Thanks for the replies. Is it safe to assume that anything in deps/build that exists in multiple versions, is only needed in the latest of those? For instance, I have ``` 159M deps/build/llvm-3.3 318M deps/build/llvm-3.7.1 881M deps/build/openblas-12ab1804b6ebcd38b26960d65d254314d8bc33d6 943M deps/build/openblas ``` where it seems I could shave off a GB or so by deleting `llvm-3.3` and `openblas-`. `deps/srccache` is another 650 MB, can that also be deleted? My main reason for building from source rather than using the binaries is that now and then I stumble on something I want to investigate and/or improve in base, and the threshold for actually filing a PR is much lower if I already have the code I'm running locally. Once 0.5 is out for real I'll probably drop the source tree for 0.4, so "temporarily" freeing up a couple of gigs by deleting build intermediates is good enough for now. // T On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 10:49:38 AM UTC+2, Andreas Lobinger wrote: > > Hello colleague, > > On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 10:11:46 AM UTC+2, Tomas Lycken wrote: >> >> Both instances of Julia are runnable, so I don’t think I deleted >> something I shouldn’t have in either folder. >> >> What has changed to make Julia 0.5 so big? Are there any build artifacts >> I can/should prune to reduce this footprint? >> > my guess it's some cumulative build artefacts: > > lobi@orange4:~/julia05/deps$ du -sh * > 8,0Karpack.mk > 12K blas.mk > 4,8Gbuild > 508Kchecksums > 4,0Kdsfmt.mk > 8,0Kfftw.mk > 4,0Kgfortblas.alias > 8,0Kgfortblas.c > 4,0Kgmp.mk > 4,0KlibdSFMT.def > 4,0Klibgit2.mk > 4,0Klibgit2.version > 4,0Klibssh2.mk > 4,0Klibssh2.version > 4,0Klibuv.mk > 4,0Klibuv.version > 20K llvm.mk > 4,0Kllvm-ver.make > 8,0KMakefile > 4,0Kmbedtls.mk > 4,0Kmpfr.mk > 4,0KNATIVE.cmake > 4,0Kobjconv.mk > 4,0Kopenblas.version > 4,0Kopenlibm.mk > 4,0Kopenlibm.version > 4,0Kopenspecfun.mk > 4,0Kopenspecfun.version > 4,0Kpatchelf.mk > 328Kpatches > 4,0Kpcre.mk > 2,0Gsrccache > 8,0Ksuitesparse.mk > 4,0KSuiteSparse_wrapper.c > 20K tools > 4,0Kunwind.mk > 4,0Kutf8proc.mk > 4,0Kutf8proc.version > 384Kvalgrind > 4,0KVersions.make > 4,0Kvirtualenv.mk > >
[julia-users] Re: Why is Julia 0.5 built from source almost twice as large (on disk) as Julia 0.4?
The .git history for LLVM is also pretty big ~ 500 MB. I also see I have 3 builds of openblas so if you have multiple of them, you could remove the unnecessary ones.
[julia-users] Re: Why is Julia 0.5 built from source almost twice as large (on disk) as Julia 0.4?
Hello colleague, On Wednesday, August 10, 2016 at 10:11:46 AM UTC+2, Tomas Lycken wrote: > > Both instances of Julia are runnable, so I don’t think I deleted something > I shouldn’t have in either folder. > > What has changed to make Julia 0.5 so big? Are there any build artifacts I > can/should prune to reduce this footprint? > my guess it's some cumulative build artefacts: lobi@orange4:~/julia05/deps$ du -sh * 8,0Karpack.mk 12K blas.mk 4,8Gbuild 508Kchecksums 4,0Kdsfmt.mk 8,0Kfftw.mk 4,0Kgfortblas.alias 8,0Kgfortblas.c 4,0Kgmp.mk 4,0KlibdSFMT.def 4,0Klibgit2.mk 4,0Klibgit2.version 4,0Klibssh2.mk 4,0Klibssh2.version 4,0Klibuv.mk 4,0Klibuv.version 20K llvm.mk 4,0Kllvm-ver.make 8,0KMakefile 4,0Kmbedtls.mk 4,0Kmpfr.mk 4,0KNATIVE.cmake 4,0Kobjconv.mk 4,0Kopenblas.version 4,0Kopenlibm.mk 4,0Kopenlibm.version 4,0Kopenspecfun.mk 4,0Kopenspecfun.version 4,0Kpatchelf.mk 328Kpatches 4,0Kpcre.mk 2,0Gsrccache 8,0Ksuitesparse.mk 4,0KSuiteSparse_wrapper.c 20K tools 4,0Kunwind.mk 4,0Kutf8proc.mk 4,0Kutf8proc.version 384Kvalgrind 4,0KVersions.make 4,0Kvirtualenv.mk
