Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Re: Re: bootstrapping since gcc 3.4 is stable

[Chris Gianelloni <wolf31o2@gentoo.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2702 bytes --]

On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 18:02 -0600, MIkey wrote:
> Jan Kundrát wrote:
> 
> > "What is most interesting to me about this discussion is the fact than
> > no one has bothered to offer any facts to back up these assertions." --
> > author should read any of the wolf31o2's mails about this subject.
> 
> I _have_ read his "mails" about it, had several exchanges with him on the
> topic myself.  As a matter of fact if you read the "FUD" you might note
> some of his quotes are the reasons I ran the tests in the first place. 
> Frankly, I believe he is wrong, and I explained why.

You didn't follow the Handbook.  Your comments about compiling GCC 3
times are completely unbased, since you ran not only an "emerge -e
system" (which is recommended) but then immediately, and needlessly,
followed it up with an "emerge -e world" which pretty much blew any
results that you had gained out of the water.

> The FUD is that stage3 is a better installation process than a (corrected)
> stage1.  The facts are right there in what I posted.  Stage3's take twice
> as long rebuilding the same number of packages and introduce a plethora of
> roadblocks in the build process unless you stay on a very narrow path.  How
> any "developer" can claim that this is a quicker, cleaner, or easier
> process to support is beyond me.  Maybe in bizarro world.

There are no "facts" in what you posted.  In fact, it looks as if your
designs were tailored to find a way in which you could get a stage3 to
be slower.  If you're willing, I will work on the scripts to produce
*accurate* results for stages 1 and 3.  Essentially, your data was
worthless since you didn't follow any prescribed way of using a stage3
tarball, nor did you anywhere cite where you came up with your
procedures.

> I will stick to the facts myself, thank you very much.  I invite you to
> actually read the reports I generated and tell where my conclusions are
> wrong.  If you can't do that, you are fudding yourself.

I just did.  You can stick with your "facts" all that you want, but
they're incorrect.

Here's a simple pseudo-formula to determine just how off you were:

(Yes, this is simplified slightly)

stage1 == tarball + toolchain (bootstrap) + system
stage3 == tarball + system + depclean

I'm sorry, but I cannot possibly believe that compiling the toolchain +
the system target takes less time than only compiling system and
summarily removing unused packages.  This, by the way, would have
avoided the issues that you were having with things like "ls" being
broken.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]