[gentoo-user] LibreOffice 3.4.4: required HDD space

[gentoo-user] LibreOffice 3.4.4: required HDD space

[v_2e]

  Hello!
  I decided to upgrade LibreOffice this week to the verstion 3.4.4. 
  Before trying to build this package, emerge performed the pre-check
of available space on my hard disk - 9GB. I did have this amount of
free space on the drive, but I noticed that after about 8 hours of
compiling it took only ~4 GB on my HDD. First of all, I thought that it
was compiling *really* slowly and that it hadn't even made a half of
the job. However, after about a half an hour it finished with success
and I noticed that altogether it took about 4.5 GB on HDD.
  So it checked 9GB (and earlier versions of LO indeed needed almost
such amount of free space), but took only as much as 4.5 GB.

  The question is: why?



P.S. Today I tried to install LO v.3.4.4 on the machine with about 6 GB
of free space. Emerge performed its regular pre-check and refused to
build the package. I changed the 
    CHECKREQS_DISK_BUILD="9G"
to
    CHECKREQS_DISK_BUILD="5G"
in "libreoffice-3.4.4.2-r1.ebuild" and everything went fine.

  Regards,
    Vladimir

----- 
 <v_2e@ukr.net>

Re: [gentoo-user] LibreOffice 3.4.4: required HDD space

[Philip Webb]

111120 v_2e@ukr.net wrote:
> I decided to upgrade LibreOffice to 3.4.4. 
> Before trying to build it, emerge performed the pre-check of available space
> on my hard disk - 9GB. I did have this amount of free space on the drive,
> but I noticed that after about 8 hours of compiling
> it took only ~4 GB on my HDD.

I ran into a similar problem, compounded by the fact
that it was checking the wrong HDD directory.
The solution was to update to the latest testing version of Portage,
when it checked the correct dir, which had enough space.
It needed  c 3,5 GB  ( 3,36 GB  near the end, but I missed the peak),
which is the usual amount.  It took  1 h 56 m  with my Core 2 Duo CPU.

See Forum thread  http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-6864358.html .

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,   Philip Webb
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|   Cities Centre, University of Toronto
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'   purslowatchassdotutorontodotca

Re: [gentoo-user] LibreOffice 3.4.4: required HDD space

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

Am Sonntag 20 November 2011, 11:09:05 schrieb v_2e@ukr.net:
>   Hello!
>   I decided to upgrade LibreOffice this week to the verstion 3.4.4.
>   Before trying to build this package, emerge performed the pre-check
> of available space on my hard disk - 9GB. I did have this amount of
> free space on the drive, but I noticed that after about 8 hours of
> compiling it took only ~4 GB on my HDD. First of all, I thought that it
> was compiling *really* slowly and that it hadn't even made a half of
> the job. However, after about a half an hour it finished with success
> and I noticed that altogether it took about 4.5 GB on HDD.
>   So it checked 9GB (and earlier versions of LO indeed needed almost
> such amount of free space), but took only as much as 4.5 GB.
> 
>   The question is: why?
> 
> 
> 
> P.S. Today I tried to install LO v.3.4.4 on the machine with about 6 GB
> of free space. Emerge performed its regular pre-check and refused to
> build the package. I changed the
>     CHECKREQS_DISK_BUILD="9G"
> to
>     CHECKREQS_DISK_BUILD="5G"
> in "libreoffice-3.4.4.2-r1.ebuild" and everything went fine.
> 
>   Regards,
>     Vladimir
> 
> -----
>  <v_2e@ukr.net>


no need to edit ebuilds:
I_KNOW_WHAT_I_AM_DOING="yes"

in make.conf 

-- 
#163933

Re: [gentoo-user] LibreOffice 3.4.4: required HDD space

[smalker]

> I_KNOW_WHAT_I_AM_DOING="yes"
> in make.conf 

This feature makes me smile.

Re: [gentoo-user] LibreOffice 3.4.4: required HDD space

[Michael Mol]

On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 4:09 AM,  <v_2e@ukr.net> wrote:
>  Hello!
>  I decided to upgrade LibreOffice this week to the verstion 3.4.4.
>  Before trying to build this package, emerge performed the pre-check
> of available space on my hard disk - 9GB. I did have this amount of
> free space on the drive, but I noticed that after about 8 hours of
> compiling it took only ~4 GB on my HDD. First of all, I thought that it
> was compiling *really* slowly and that it hadn't even made a half of
> the job. However, after about a half an hour it finished with success
> and I noticed that altogether it took about 4.5 GB on HDD.
>  So it checked 9GB (and earlier versions of LO indeed needed almost
> such amount of free space), but took only as much as 4.5 GB.
>
>  The question is: why?

I'll venture a guess that it may have approached 9GB either with some
short-lived files, or *would* have approached 9GB with a different USE
flag or other configuration combination.

> P.S. Today I tried to install LO v.3.4.4 on the machine with about 6 GB
> of free space. Emerge performed its regular pre-check and refused to
> build the package. I changed the
>    CHECKREQS_DISK_BUILD="9G"
> to
>    CHECKREQS_DISK_BUILD="5G"
> in "libreoffice-3.4.4.2-r1.ebuild" and everything went fine.

Ok, then I'll narrow my guess to the size required being dependent on
USE flag combinations.

-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] LibreOffice 3.4.4: required HDD space

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 275 bytes --]

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 09:07:33 -0500, Michael Mol wrote:

> Ok, then I'll narrow my guess to the size required being dependent on
> USE flag combinations.

Also CFLAGS and architecture, to a lesser extent.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Indecision is the key to flexibility.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] LibreOffice 3.4.4: required HDD space

[James Broadhead]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 471 bytes --]

On 20 November 2011 18:32, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:

> On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 09:07:33 -0500, Michael Mol wrote:
>
> > Ok, then I'll narrow my guess to the size required being dependent on
> > USE flag combinations.
>
> Also CFLAGS and architecture, to a lesser extent.


Seeing as the ebuild is 'aware' of CFLAGS and USE, it would be nice if it
would use that information (roughly) to determine how much space to check
for.

4-9GiB is a pretty wide range.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 835 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] LibreOffice 3.4.4: required HDD space

[Michael Mol]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 754 bytes --]

On Nov 20, 2011 2:04 PM, "James Broadhead" <jamesbroadhead@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 20 November 2011 18:32, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 09:07:33 -0500, Michael Mol wrote:
>>
>> > Ok, then I'll narrow my guess to the size required being dependent on
>> > USE flag combinations.
>>
>> Also CFLAGS and architecture, to a lesser extent.
>
>
> Seeing as the ebuild is 'aware' of CFLAGS and USE, it would be nice if it
would use that information (roughly) to determine how much space to check
for.
>
> 4-9GiB is a pretty wide range.

Imractical; you'd have a count of possible sizes increase geometrically
with the number of USE flags, and it's not going to be something so simple
as "this adds N MB, this adds M MB..."

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1057 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] LibreOffice 3.4.4: required HDD space

[Dale]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1127 bytes --]

James Broadhead wrote:
> On 20 November 2011 18:32, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk 
> <mailto:neil@digimed.co.uk>> wrote:
>
>     On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 09:07:33 -0500, Michael Mol wrote:
>
>     > Ok, then I'll narrow my guess to the size required being
>     dependent on
>     > USE flag combinations.
>
>     Also CFLAGS and architecture, to a lesser extent.
>
>
> Seeing as the ebuild is 'aware' of CFLAGS and USE, it would be nice if 
> it would use that information (roughly) to determine how much space to 
> check for.
>
> 4-9GiB is a pretty wide range.
>
>

Then people will complain that it takes to long for emerge to figure out 
how much space each combination of USE flags will need, if there is even 
a way to do it.  I doubt there is a way to do that unless some dev wants 
to spend the time compiling each combination and test it.

The funny thing is, my partition runs out of space on /var so I have to 
mount portage's work directory on tmpfs to have the space to compile 
LOo.  lol

Dale

:-)  :-)

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2184 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] LibreOffice 3.4.4: required HDD space

[Alan McKinnon]

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 18:58:22 +0000
James Broadhead <jamesbroadhead@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 20 November 2011 18:32, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 09:07:33 -0500, Michael Mol wrote:
> >
> > > Ok, then I'll narrow my guess to the size required being
> > > dependent on USE flag combinations.
> >
> > Also CFLAGS and architecture, to a lesser extent.
> 
> 
> Seeing as the ebuild is 'aware' of CFLAGS and USE, it would be nice
> if it would use that information (roughly) to determine how much
> space to check for.
> 
> 4-9GiB is a pretty wide range.

If the maintainer implemented that, he'd be promptly inundated with all
manner of support question none of which he can answer accurately.

A slight mis-measurement on how much space a specific setup needs
results in a failed build, or a build that won't start or any amount of
other craziness.

Read the maintainer's blog sometime (it's on the gentoo.org frontpage)
to get a sense of what it takes to maintain that bitch of a project.
Something as simple as figuring out what packages LibreOffice bundles
and making the ebuild use the system one instead is a mammoth task.
Don't forget that every little tweak is 2 hours of building just to
test if it builds. Then one has to test if it works....

I'm not surprised the OOo and LibreOffice ebuilds take the easy route -
figure out by enabling everything the maximum amount of free space OOo
ould possibly need to build, then insist the build host has at least
that much free. Heck, I'd do exactly the same.

 
-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] LibreOffice 3.4.4: required HDD space

[James Broadhead]

On 20 November 2011 20:09, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 18:58:22 +0000
> James Broadhead <jamesbroadhead@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Seeing as the ebuild is 'aware' of CFLAGS and USE, it would be nice
>> if it would use that information (roughly) to determine how much
>> space to check for.
>>
>> 4-9GiB is a pretty wide range.
>
> A slight mis-measurement on how much space a specific setup needs
> results in a failed build, or a build that won't start or any amount of
> other craziness.
>
> Read the maintainer's blog sometime (it's on the gentoo.org frontpage)
> to get a sense of what it takes to maintain that bitch of a project.
> Something as simple as figuring out what packages LibreOffice bundles
> and making the ebuild use the system one instead is a mammoth task.
> Don't forget that every little tweak is 2 hours of building just to
> test if it builds. Then one has to test if it works....
>
> I'm not surprised the OOo and LibreOffice ebuilds take the easy route -
> figure out by enabling everything the maximum amount of free space OOo
> ould possibly need to build, then insist the build host has at least
> that much free. Heck, I'd do exactly the same.

I read the blogs, and I'm well aware of the difficulties. I suppose
I'm pretty used to running my laptop pretty close to the wire
space-wise, and so an ebuild asking for 9GiB when it only requires
5GiB would cause me to have to shuffle a lot of things around to no
good end.

Really though, it would be replacing one (inaccurate, but
conservative) estimate with two such estimates.

Still, nothing much to stress about.

Re: [gentoo-user] LibreOffice 3.4.4: required HDD space

[Alan McKinnon]

On Sat, 26 Nov 2011 13:49:07 +0000
James Broadhead <jamesbroadhead@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 20 November 2011 20:09, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 18:58:22 +0000
> > James Broadhead <jamesbroadhead@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Seeing as the ebuild is 'aware' of CFLAGS and USE, it would be nice
> >> if it would use that information (roughly) to determine how much
> >> space to check for.
> >>
> >> 4-9GiB is a pretty wide range.
> >
> > A slight mis-measurement on how much space a specific setup needs
> > results in a failed build, or a build that won't start or any
> > amount of other craziness.
> >
> > Read the maintainer's blog sometime (it's on the gentoo.org
> > frontpage) to get a sense of what it takes to maintain that bitch
> > of a project. Something as simple as figuring out what packages
> > LibreOffice bundles and making the ebuild use the system one
> > instead is a mammoth task. Don't forget that every little tweak is
> > 2 hours of building just to test if it builds. Then one has to test
> > if it works....
> >
> > I'm not surprised the OOo and LibreOffice ebuilds take the easy
> > route - figure out by enabling everything the maximum amount of
> > free space OOo ould possibly need to build, then insist the build
> > host has at least that much free. Heck, I'd do exactly the same.
> 
> I read the blogs, and I'm well aware of the difficulties. I suppose
> I'm pretty used to running my laptop pretty close to the wire
> space-wise, and so an ebuild asking for 9GiB when it only requires
> 5GiB would cause me to have to shuffle a lot of things around to no
> good end.
> 
> Really though, it would be replacing one (inaccurate, but
> conservative) estimate with two such estimates.

Where are you getting your information from?

9G is what the dev reckons is the maximum. This other figure of 4G -
what is that? The amount needed by some arb combination on some arb
user's machine? That's not a good enough criteria.

It's not really the maximum plus one well-defined other. It's is the
maximum plus every other possible combination (there is no defined
minimal). 

If it's an issue for you, the solution is simple - keep a copy of the
ebuild in your local overlay and edit the space requirements. Keep it up
to date and in-sync with the ebuild in the main tree. It means you get
to a little extra work, but is preferable to the dev doing a lot of
extra work

> 
> Still, nothing much to stress about.
> 



-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] LibreOffice 3.4.4: required HDD space

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> 9G is what the dev reckons is the maximum. This other figure of 4G - 
> what is that? The amount needed by some arb combination on some arb 
> user's machine? That's not a good enough criteria. It's not really the 
> maximum plus one well-defined other. It's is the maximum plus every 
> other possible combination (there is no defined minimal). If it's an 
> issue for you, the solution is simple - keep a copy of the ebuild in 
> your local overlay and edit the space requirements. Keep it up to date 
> and in-sync with the ebuild in the main tree. It means you get to a 
> little extra work, but is preferable to the dev doing a lot of extra work

With a compile that takes as long as LOo does, I'd want the dev to be on 
the side of caution rather than underestimating it.  If the max is 9Gbs, 
then that is what they should check for.  I would much rather the dev do 
that than for me to get to about 90% of the compile done then get the 
little message that it is out of space.  I wouldn't be "hal" mad but it 
would sort of tick me off a bit.  ;-)  Maybe not as bad as /usr on init 
or using a init thingy either.  Still a bit upset tho.

Dale

:-)  :-)

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

[gentoo-user] Re: LibreOffice 3.4.4: required HDD space

[Grant Edwards]

On 2011-11-20, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:

>> 4-9GiB is a pretty wide range.
>
> If the maintainer implemented that, he'd be promptly inundated with
> all manner of support question none of which he can answer
> accurately.
>
> A slight mis-measurement on how much space a specific setup needs
> results in a failed build, or a build that won't start or any amount
> of other craziness.

I've developed a pretty accurate rule for determining how much disk
space is required for building LO.  Just before you start the emerge,
do a "df" command.  Take the number for the filesystem where your
builds are done and add 15%.

-- 
Grant

Re: [gentoo-user] LibreOffice 3.4.4: required HDD space

[v_2e]

  Hello!

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 09:07:33 -0500
Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I'll venture a guess that it may have approached 9GB either with some
> short-lived files, or *would* have approached 9GB with a different USE
> flag or other configuration combination.
>  ...
> Ok, then I'll narrow my guess to the size required being dependent on
> USE flag combinations.
> 
  Yes, I thought so too, but I use the same set of USE flags for quite
a long time, and previous versions of LO really needed the stated
amount of free space. At least, more than 6 GB. And the last version
(3.4.4) not only needs about a half of the stated space, it needs
*less* space than the previous versions. 
  It may mean that the newer version is *substantially* reworked
though, which is very good. :)

  Regards,
     Vladimir

----- 
 <v_2e@ukr.net>

Re: [gentoo-user] LibreOffice 3.4.4: required HDD space

[Michael Mol]

On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 2:07 PM,  <v_2e@ukr.net> wrote:
>  Hello!
>
> On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 09:07:33 -0500
> Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'll venture a guess that it may have approached 9GB either with some
>> short-lived files, or *would* have approached 9GB with a different USE
>> flag or other configuration combination.
>>  ...
>> Ok, then I'll narrow my guess to the size required being dependent on
>> USE flag combinations.
>>
>  Yes, I thought so too, but I use the same set of USE flags for quite
> a long time, and previous versions of LO really needed the stated
> amount of free space. At least, more than 6 GB. And the last version
> (3.4.4) not only needs about a half of the stated space, it needs
> *less* space than the previous versions.
>  It may mean that the newer version is *substantially* reworked
> though, which is very good. :)

I forget the name of the tool that predicts compile times based on
package sets and USE flags. Perhaps it could be expanded to collect
data and predict disk requirements? It'd almost require stracing the
compile process tree or FAMing the build directory tree, though;
polling with 'du' might miss a peak usage point. (And would certainly
slow things down)

-- 
:wq