 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
http://xkcd.com/456/
Mmm... I did this.
Do you have *any idea* how long it takes to compile the Linux kernel? I
mean, damn, how *big* is it?? I thought the final binary was only a few
KB in size...
Oddly, X11 also takes forever.
(It's no surprise however that Firefox and OpenOffice are slow as hell.
Oh, and KDE... *very* slow!)
Damn, I really don't know why the hell I did that...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> http://xkcd.com/456/
That's funny. Been there.
> Do you have *any idea* how long it takes to compile the Linux kernel? I
> mean, damn, how *big* is it?? I thought the final binary was only a few
> KB in size...
The wait is even more fun the second time around, after you realize you
forgot to configure a necessary driver into your custom kernel. :D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kyle wrote:
> That's funny. Been there.
"...I'm too late." ;-)
>> Do you have *any idea* how long it takes to compile the Linux kernel?
>> I mean, damn, how *big* is it?? I thought the final binary was only a
>> few KB in size...
>
> The wait is even more fun the second time around, after you realize you
> forgot to configure a necessary driver into your custom kernel. :D
I still don't entirely "get" why you would ever recompile the OS kernel.
I mean, all it does is memory allocation, interrupt scheduling, etc.
What's to change?
Also... Gentoo is the only Linux distro I've ever seen where compiling
the kernel was actually successful. Every other distro managed to either
spit cryptic error messages at me, or just leave me with a nonbootable
system.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> http://xkcd.com/456/
>
> Mmm... I did this.
>
> Do you have *any idea* how long it takes to compile the Linux kernel? I
> mean, damn, how *big* is it?? I thought the final binary was only a few
> KB in size...
Usually 8-10 minutes IME.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Do you have *any idea* how long it takes to compile the Linux kernel? I
>> mean, damn, how *big* is it?? I thought the final binary was only a few
>> KB in size...
>
> Usually 8-10 minutes IME.
Exactly. "Normal" programs take less than 4 *seconds* to compile! o_O
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> (It's no surprise however that Firefox and OpenOffice are slow as hell.
> Oh, and KDE... *very* slow!)
Compiling all of KDE using GCC 3 == PAIN
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>>> Do you have *any idea* how long it takes to compile the Linux kernel? I
>>> mean, damn, how *big* is it?? I thought the final binary was only a few
>>> KB in size...
>>
>> Usually 8-10 minutes IME.
>
> Exactly. "Normal" programs take less than 4 *seconds* to compile! o_O
#define normal_program;
It depends very much of the scale of the program. OpenOffice takes
couple of hours IIRC.
For comparison:
grunka linux # time emerge povray
-clip-
real 2m0.416s
user 1m15.329s
sys 0m40.495s
POV-Ray, as you surely know, "only" calculates images after all (Unix
version doesn't even have a GUI nor editor). Linux kernel inholds
drivers for most of the hardware you're using (possibly even all of
them), does memory allocating, process handling, networking,
firewalling, RAID-handling, even cryptographic thingies.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Exactly. "Normal" programs take less than 4 *seconds* to compile! o_O
>
> #define normal_program;
>
> It depends very much of the scale of the program.
Indeed yes.
Since even quite "large" programs take only a few seconds to compile,
the Linux kernel must be *huge*...
> OpenOffice takes couple of hours IIRC.
...and OpenOffice must be absolutely gigantic. But then, it's a pretty
complex bit of software, so you'd expect that. The Linux kernel's job
seems quite a bit simpler by comparison.
> Linux kernel inholds
> drivers for most of the hardware you're using (possibly even all of
> them), does memory allocating, process handling, networking,
> firewalling, RAID-handling, even cryptographic thingies.
Ah yes, I'm forgetting: The Linux "kernel" isn't just the OS kernel. How
silly of me...
(It probably contains drivers for every piece of hardware known to
mankind, even if you don't need it. And I'll bet even if you disable
those parts, it still has to process that part of the source code to
decide whether or not to compile it...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Do you have *any idea* how long it takes to compile the Linux kernel? I
> mean, damn, how *big* is it?? I thought the final binary was only a few
> KB in size...
8-10 minutes is not that long. I've been running Gentoo for over 5
years on the same machine, so I can tell you how long it took for any
package I've ever compiled via Portage.
GTK+ 2.x takes about 40 minutes
xulrunner (which is the bulk of the Firefox compile): 1 hour.
Thunderbird: 1.5 hours
gimp: 40 minutes
glibc: 1 hour
xorg-server: 25 minutes
> Oddly, X11 also takes forever.
For me, other things take a longer forever.
> (It's no surprise however that Firefox and OpenOffice are slow as hell.
> Oh, and KDE... *very* slow!)
KDE need not be slow if you only compile what you want. I stopped using
DE's years ago, so now I only have a few KDE apps installed that I use.
--
If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawaz org<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I still don't entirely "get" why you would ever recompile the OS kernel.
> I mean, all it does is memory allocation, interrupt scheduling, etc.
> What's to change?
When I initially compiled the kernel after installing Gentoo, I had no
DVD drive, and was also short a lot of other hardware. So I turned those
options off. Later on, when I got certain hardware, I needed to enable
those options.
Lately I've had to connect to work using a PPTP VPN (evil stuff). I
hadn't compiled PPTP support in the kernel. So: Recompile. Another time
I needed to use DAV. Not enabled in kernel - so I compiled.
I don't do it often - probably 1-3 times a year.
--
If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 13:31:27 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> http://xkcd.com/456/
>
> Mmm... I did this.
>
> Do you have *any idea* how long it takes to compile the Linux kernel?
It depends.
On a lot of things, like how fast your system is, whether it's multi-core
(if made with -j that will do parallel compilation, speeding things up a
bit), how much memory you have, how fast your disk I/O channel is, memory
channel, etc.
> I
> mean, damn, how *big* is it??
It depends.
On a lot of things, like which modules you compile into the kernel,
compile as kernel modules, or don't compile. Also on which options you
actually enable.
> I thought the final binary was only a few
> KB in size...
It depends.
On my 64-bit system, the kernel is about 2.1 MB in size, but that doesn't
include 108 MB of modules for this specific kernel.
> Oddly, X11 also takes forever.
It's a lot of code, video drivers for many different types of cards.
> (It's no surprise however that Firefox and OpenOffice are slow as hell.
> Oh, and KDE... *very* slow!)
>
> Damn, I really don't know why the hell I did that...
Well, now you've learned something - LFS does take time. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 14:00:24 +0000, Invisible wrote:
> Kyle wrote:
>> That's funny. Been there.
>
> "...I'm too late." ;-)
>
>>> Do you have *any idea* how long it takes to compile the Linux kernel?
>>> I mean, damn, how *big* is it?? I thought the final binary was only a
>>> few KB in size...
>>
>> The wait is even more fun the second time around, after you realize you
>> forgot to configure a necessary driver into your custom kernel. :D
>
> I still don't entirely "get" why you would ever recompile the OS kernel.
> I mean, all it does is memory allocation, interrupt scheduling, etc.
> What's to change?
Driver support beyond what's in your shipping kernel.
> Also... Gentoo is the only Linux distro I've ever seen where compiling
> the kernel was actually successful. Every other distro managed to either
> spit cryptic error messages at me, or just leave me with a nonbootable
> system.
Well, I've compiled on RedHat and on openSUSE, as well as having
installed Slackware and Linux From Scratch and compiled kernels for them.
Try LFS, that'll really teach you a lot about linux, even if you don't
get a bootable system.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 13:45:55 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Invisible wrote:
>> (It's no surprise however that Firefox and OpenOffice are slow as hell.
>> Oh, and KDE... *very* slow!)
>
> Compiling all of KDE using GCC 3 == PAIN
Building GCC on Sun systems was fun - IIRC, it compiled itself three
times, first time using the commercial compiler that came with the OS,
and then two separate passes with GCC itself to optimize its own code.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>
> I still don't entirely "get" why you would ever recompile the OS kernel.
> I mean, all it does is memory allocation, interrupt scheduling, etc.
> What's to change?
>
1) Upgrade.
2) Add support to stuff (eg. new devices)
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>
> Indeed yes.
>
> Since even quite "large" programs take only a few seconds to compile,
> the Linux kernel must be *huge*...
So POV-Ray is much more than large? The machine I compiled it earlier
with is equipped with AMD Athlon64 X2 4450e ie. 2,3GHz dual-core, 64-bit
Athlon and 8GiB of memory. It's not the fastest machine on Earth, but I
wouldn't call it a slow one either (yet, after a year or two I'll
probably do that).
>> OpenOffice takes couple of hours IIRC.
>
> ...and OpenOffice must be absolutely gigantic.
Yes, it is a mammoth.
grunka ~ # du -hs /var/tmp/portage/app-office/openoffice-3.0.0/work/ooo/
2.6G /var/tmp/portage/app-office/openoffice-3.0.0/work/ooo/
> But then, it's a pretty
> complex bit of software, so you'd expect that. The Linux kernel's job
> seems quite a bit simpler by comparison.
Errrr... It's not that simple. Try and make similar thing yourself.
btw:
grunka src # du -hs linux-2.6.26-gentoo-r4/
316M linux-2.6.26-gentoo-r4/
That is non-compiled, non-configured set, ie. just kernel sources
equipped with Gentoo's patchset. So yes, it is huge :).
>> Linux kernel inholds
>> drivers for most of the hardware you're using (possibly even all of
>> them), does memory allocating, process handling, networking,
>> firewalling, RAID-handling, even cryptographic thingies.
>
> Ah yes, I'm forgetting: The Linux "kernel" isn't just the OS kernel. How
> silly of me...
Linux kernel is a monolithic kernel, not a microkernel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microkernel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monolithic_kernel
> (It probably contains drivers for every piece of hardware known to
> mankind, even if you don't need it. And I'll bet even if you disable
> those parts, it still has to process that part of the source code to
> decide whether or not to compile it...)
No, it doesn't :(. That's one reason why Windows is still much more
widely used in workstations and especially in gaming computers.
I dunno exactly what the system checks from the source when I leave eg.
floppy disk driver out, but it does make the whole process faster.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>
> 8-10 minutes is not that long. I've been running Gentoo for over 5
> years on the same machine, so I can tell you how long it took for any
> package I've ever compiled via Portage.
Ooh, I've clearly missed some information, where is that written?
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 14:00:24 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>
>> Kyle wrote:
>>> That's funny. Been there.
>> "...I'm too late." ;-)
>>
>>>> Do you have *any idea* how long it takes to compile the Linux kernel?
>>>> I mean, damn, how *big* is it?? I thought the final binary was only a
>>>> few KB in size...
>>> The wait is even more fun the second time around, after you realize you
>>> forgot to configure a necessary driver into your custom kernel. :D
>> I still don't entirely "get" why you would ever recompile the OS kernel.
>> I mean, all it does is memory allocation, interrupt scheduling, etc.
>> What's to change?
>
> Driver support beyond what's in your shipping kernel.
>
>> Also... Gentoo is the only Linux distro I've ever seen where compiling
>> the kernel was actually successful. Every other distro managed to either
>> spit cryptic error messages at me, or just leave me with a nonbootable
>> system.
>
> Well, I've compiled on RedHat and on openSUSE, as well as having
> installed Slackware and Linux From Scratch and compiled kernels for them.
>
> Try LFS, that'll really teach you a lot about linux, even if you don't
> get a bootable system.
>
> Jim
It's not too hard to get a bootable LFS system - and if it is hard and
you get it to boot, then you've learned a lot!
I must admit, I cheat and use the automated build now days.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 13:31:27 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>
>> http://xkcd.com/456/
>>
>> Mmm... I did this.
>>
>> Do you have *any idea* how long it takes to compile the Linux kernel?
>
> It depends.
>
> On a lot of things, like how fast your system is, whether it's multi-core
> (if made with -j that will do parallel compilation, speeding things up a
> bit), how much memory you have, how fast your disk I/O channel is, memory
> channel, etc.
>
>> I
>> mean, damn, how *big* is it??
>
> It depends.
>
> On a lot of things, like which modules you compile into the kernel,
> compile as kernel modules, or don't compile. Also on which options you
> actually enable.
>
>> I thought the final binary was only a few
>> KB in size...
>
> It depends.
>
> On my 64-bit system, the kernel is about 2.1 MB in size, but that doesn't
> include 108 MB of modules for this specific kernel.
>
>> Oddly, X11 also takes forever.
>
> It's a lot of code, video drivers for many different types of cards.
>
>> (It's no surprise however that Firefox and OpenOffice are slow as hell.
>> Oh, and KDE... *very* slow!)
>>
>> Damn, I really don't know why the hell I did that...
>
> Well, now you've learned something - LFS does take time. :-)
>
> Jim
Hey Jim, sounds like you are into the LFS stuff as well.
I'm going through the book "Building Embedded Linux Systems" and they
refer to CLFS quite a bit. Seems like those guys made the earth move a
bit -;)
Tom
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Building GCC on Sun systems was fun - IIRC, it compiled itself three
> times, first time using the commercial compiler that came with the OS,
> and then two separate passes with GCC itself to optimize its own code.
Yep, the three-phase bootstrapping. I think the final step is building
itself with itself and comparing both executables, to make sure everything
worked.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Building GCC on Sun systems was fun - IIRC, it compiled itself three
>> times, first time using the commercial compiler that came with the OS,
>> and then two separate passes with GCC itself to optimize its own code.
>
> Yep, the three-phase bootstrapping. I think the final step is building
> itself with itself and comparing both executables, to make sure everything
> worked.
I understand the Haskell compiler (GHC) does something similar. First,
you obtain a copy of GHC compiled into ANSI C. Then you use that to
compile the original Haskell source code for GHC.
The fun part, of course, as that was well as a working Haskell compiler,
you need a working Haskell runtime engine and a set of working Haskell
base libraries (which hook directly into the runtime and are partly
hard-wired into the compiler)... ;-)
Apparently building GHC is... nontrivial. And poorly-documented.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> Do you have *any idea* how long it takes to compile the Linux kernel? I
> >> mean, damn, how *big* is it?? I thought the final binary was only a few
> >> KB in size...
> >
> > Usually 8-10 minutes IME.
>
> Exactly. "Normal" programs take less than 4 *seconds* to compile! o_O
An OS kernel is not hello world where all the libs are already compiled. A
kernel is pretty much a program and its own libs, plus any device drivers and
more.
Have you ever tried to compile a compiler, BTW? Like GCC or GHC? come back
when you do.
In the comics, I like it how the hair grows on the kid. Indeed, it happened to
a friend. I think he thought the point of Linux was to have fun compiling
everything by hand. He gave up once he had already recompiled the kernel and
installed Microsoft fonts in X. No more fun I guess... :P
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Driver support beyond what's in your shipping kernel.
I've added drivers that didn't need a kernel recompile. Admittedly, I don't
think they showed up in the file system as such (i.e., they didn't show up
in /dev), but I didn't need that.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Since even quite "large" programs take only a few seconds to compile,
You're making me nostalgic for the days of 45-minute link times *after* you
compile to get a program that fit on a 360K floppy disk. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis wrote:
...
> Have you ever tried to compile a compiler, BTW? Like GCC or GHC? come back
> when you do.
...
If he is using Gentoo, then maybe he has done that already.
--
Tor Olav
http://subcube.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> I don't do it often - probably 1-3 times a year.
I really can't understand why some people seem to be constantly compiling
the linux kernel.
Guess how many times I have compiled the linux kernel in my life.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8 Dec 2008 17:28:19 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>> I don't do it often - probably 1-3 times a year.
>
> I really can't understand why some people seem to be constantly compiling
>the linux kernel.
>
> Guess how many times I have compiled the linux kernel in my life.
The one time you did it correctly?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
> 8-10 minutes is not that long.
Unless I'm remembering incorrectly, I think one common complaint in
the "big" industry about gcc is that it's a relatively slow compiler.
When you have millions of lines of code, and regardless of all the effort
you have put into minimizing the number of dependencies, there may still
be so many dependencies that even small changes to certain files can cause
enormous amounts of compilation. We are talking about hours at worst.
This can certainly be a real pain if you are simply developing and
debugging the software rather than compiling the release version of it,
so compiling speed is in this situation much more important than the
quality of the generated code, and AFAIK gcc just isn't up to the task
in enormous projects because it's so slow.
(OTOH, I have never read any benchmarks about the compilation speed of
different compilers, commercial and free. That would be an interesting read,
in fact.)
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
> > Guess how many times I have compiled the linux kernel in my life.
> The one time you did it correctly?
I haven't compiled it even once.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> I haven't compiled it even once.
Certainly I've never found it "necessary" either. But then, I don't
really "get" what it does that you'd need to change...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> ...
>> Have you ever tried to compile a compiler, BTW? Like GCC or GHC?
>> come back
>> when you do.
> ...
>
> If he is using Gentoo, then maybe he has done that already.
Was using Gentoo. And I'm pretty sure they give you a GCC binary
pre-built. (How would you build anything else otherwise?) Also the C
standard libraries, possibly. I can't remember.
Hold on a sec...
http://www.bash.org/?464385
...nope, no help there. ;-) It's hidden away in bootstrap.sh
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 8 Dec 2008 17:37:11 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
>> > Guess how many times I have compiled the linux kernel in my life.
>
>> The one time you did it correctly?
>
> I haven't compiled it even once.
Join the club, neither have I. :)
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
>
> I really can't understand why some people seem to be constantly compiling
> the linux kernel.
>
> Guess how many times I have compiled the linux kernel in my life.
>
Constantly - naah. But when running Red Hat ('bout 1998-2003 oslt) and
Debian ('bout 2001-2008) something (variating from time to time,
naturally) in the packet kernels has either been made differently than
I'd like or left to be undone at all.
And somehow while using Gentoo compiling also the kernel just makes
sense ;).
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 14:18:25 -0500, Tom Austin wrote:
>> Try LFS, that'll really teach you a lot about linux, even if you don't
>> get a bootable system.
>>
>> Jim
>
> It's not too hard to get a bootable LFS system - and if it is hard and
> you get it to boot, then you've learned a lot!
Maybe now it is, I remember it used to be an incredible way to install
because you had to do *everything*. I've seen some newer releases that
script some things, though.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 12:04:57 -0800, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Driver support beyond what's in your shipping kernel.
>
> I've added drivers that didn't need a kernel recompile. Admittedly, I
> don't think they showed up in the file system as such (i.e., they didn't
> show up in /dev), but I didn't need that.
Yeah, if you have module support compiled in, you only have to compile
the modules you need, and that does speed things up a bit. If you're
using a monolithic kernel (more common in the "old days") without modular
support, then it was a rebuild.
I used to regularly build my kernels because I wanted features in newer
versions or add-on drivers that were written to a specific kernel release.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 17:31:36 -0200, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Building GCC on Sun systems was fun - IIRC, it compiled itself three
>> times, first time using the commercial compiler that came with the OS,
>> and then two separate passes with GCC itself to optimize its own code.
>
> Yep, the three-phase bootstrapping. I think the final step is building
> itself with itself and comparing both executables, to make sure
> everything worked.
Yeah, that could be it. I remember it took *hours* to complete, we
started it and went to dinner, when we came back it still wasn't done.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 14:22:31 -0500, Tom Austin wrote:
> Hey Jim, sounds like you are into the LFS stuff as well.
Well, I've installed it once or twice in my life - I don't know if that
qualifies as "into" it. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> ...
>>> Have you ever tried to compile a compiler, BTW? Like GCC or GHC?
>>> come back
>>> when you do.
>> ...
>>
>> If he is using Gentoo, then maybe he has done that already.
>
> Was using Gentoo. And I'm pretty sure they give you a GCC binary
> pre-built. (How would you build anything else otherwise?) Also the C
> standard libraries, possibly. I can't remember.
Yes, but sometimes one does an "emerge --sync && emerge -uDN world"
> Hold on a sec...
>
> http://www.bash.org/?464385
>
> ...nope, no help there. ;-) It's hidden away in bootstrap.sh
;)
--
Tor Olav
http://subcube.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoysAT@aolDOTcom> wrote:
> On 8 Dec 2008 17:37:11 -0500, Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
>
> >Stephen <mcavoysAT@aoldotcom> wrote:
> >> > Guess how many times I have compiled the linux kernel in my life.
> >
> >> The one time you did it correctly?
> >
> > I haven't compiled it even once.
>
> Join the club, neither have I. :)
I'm joining. Never did that "initiation" exam. ;)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz <m.n### [at] ieeeorg> wrote:
>> I don't do it often - probably 1-3 times a year.
>
> I really can't understand why some people seem to be constantly compiling
> the linux kernel.
>
> Guess how many times I have compiled the linux kernel in my life.
I'm tempted to simply answer with: "Read the rest of that message."
But that probably will just lead to "Why did you have to do it the
first time?"
Answer: I was doing a Stage 1 Gentoo install - which meant compiling
*everything* from scratch. That must, of course, include the kernel.
It's quite conceivable that the default kernel options will miss out a
lot (as it did for, say, DAV support and I believe does for the MPPE
support I need for the PPTP VPN). So you then go and recompile to enable
those.
Then you have my embedded network card. Support for that was needed at
the kernel level. At the time, default kernels did not have support for
it, and you'd have to get it from the manufacturer and compile it as a
kernel module. Probably most popular distributions patched the kernel,
but I was on Gentoo and had to do it myself (which, kind of, is the
point of Gentoo). The kernels include it now by default.
Since I *had* to compile the kernel to install Gentoo(+), I went for
minimalism - I disabled everything I didn't need. Then recompiled
whenever I needed more. As the default setup wouldn't have worked
anyway, and I had to make menuconfig anyway, why not do it right?
Do popular distributions have everything enabled in the kernel by
default? I really doubt it. So none of you has ever needed to install a
package that required some kernel support - only to find that the
distro's kernel didn't enable that feature?
I don't see what the big deal is, and why people keep heavily
emphasizing to others that one shouldn't have to compile the kernel.
It's fairly straightforward, and doesn't break anything for me. In the
old days, you'd have to recompile ALSA and a few other packages
everytime you compiled the kernel, but those days are gone.
(+) Neglecting the technicality that I didn't have to do a Stage 1
install. In my case, though, that was the whole reason I was installing
Gentoo to begin with. And was well rewarded for the effort.
--
(Ice rocks hit the hull) "Captain, we are being hailed."
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Try LFS, that'll really teach you a lot about linux, even if you don't
> get a bootable system.
Ugh. You just reminded me of my nightmares with LFS. I didn't learn
much, and mostly copied & pasted the commands. Got it to work. Never
bothered to go forward with BLFS.
LFS *is* good for learning. However, it and BLFS will probably suck
heavily if you want to use it as your primary system and maintain it.
That's what led me to Gentoo.
--
(Ice rocks hit the hull) "Captain, we are being hailed."
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
>> (It probably contains drivers for every piece of hardware known to
>> mankind, even if you don't need it. And I'll bet even if you disable
>> those parts, it still has to process that part of the source code to
>> decide whether or not to compile it...)
>
> No, it doesn't :(. That's one reason why Windows is still much more
> widely used in workstations and especially in gaming computers.
Yeah, but I think Linux beats Windows hands down for legacy support. I
believe Linux surpassed Windows a while ago for overall hardware support.
--
(Ice rocks hit the hull) "Captain, we are being hailed."
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Was using Gentoo. And I'm pretty sure they give you a GCC binary
> pre-built. (How would you build anything else otherwise?) Also the C
> standard libraries, possibly. I can't remember.
If it was a stage 1 install, I think they give you a prebuilt binary,
but you then use that to compile GCC and switch to that.
--
(Ice rocks hit the hull) "Captain, we are being hailed."
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Mueen Nawaz wrote:
>
>> 8-10 minutes is not that long. I've been running Gentoo for over 5
>> years on the same machine, so I can tell you how long it took for any
>> package I've ever compiled via Portage.
>
> Ooh, I've clearly missed some information, where is that written?
I have full merge history in /var/log/emerge.log
To parse it, emerge genlop. I use genlop all the time for estimating
build times, etc.
--
(Ice rocks hit the hull) "Captain, we are being hailed."
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Invisible [mailto:voi### [at] devnull]
> I still don't entirely "get" why you would ever recompile the OS
> kernel.
> I mean, all it does is memory allocation, interrupt scheduling, etc.
> What's to change?
<sarcasm>
It's because the Linux crowd haven't figured out how to properly make
device drivers yet. Instead, the *kernel* is the device driver for
every single thing in your computer.
</sarcasm>
<serious>
If you ever need to add hardware, you have to recompile your kernel to
support it.
If you remove hardware, you should recompile your kernel not to support
it, otherwise it might be a kb or two larger than it needs to be.
</serious>
...Ben Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 19:09:30 -0800, Chambers wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Invisible [mailto:voi### [at] devnull] I still don't entirely "get" why
>> you would ever recompile the OS kernel.
>> I mean, all it does is memory allocation, interrupt scheduling, etc.
>> What's to change?
>
> <sarcasm>
> It's because the Linux crowd haven't figured out how to properly make
> device drivers yet. Instead, the *kernel* is the device driver for
> every single thing in your computer.
> </sarcasm>
>
> <serious>
> If you ever need to add hardware, you have to recompile your kernel to
> support it.
> If you remove hardware, you should recompile your kernel not to support
> it, otherwise it might be a kb or two larger than it needs to be.
> </serious>
>
> ...Ben Chambers
> www.pacificwebguy.com
Utter and complete nonsense. Or are you still using the 1.x kernels?
If your kernel is configured for modules (which I think all the major
distributions are - embedded Linux tends to use compiled-in drivers
because it's embedded and the hardware shouldn't change - in which case
the KBs worth of savings are incredibly valuable), then this isn't a
problem.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 19:23:06 -0600, Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Try LFS, that'll really teach you a lot about linux, even if you don't
>> get a bootable system.
>
> Ugh. You just reminded me of my nightmares with LFS. I didn't
learn
> much, and mostly copied & pasted the commands. Got it to work. Never
> bothered to go forward with BLFS.
>
> LFS *is* good for learning. However, it and BLFS will probably
suck
> heavily if you want to use it as your primary system and maintain it.
> That's what led me to Gentoo.
Yeah, I would only use LFS and its derivatives to learn the internals -
but once started, I'd move on to a "real" distro, like Gentoo, openSUSE,
Fedora, or Ubuntu.
Personally, I went with openSUSE (after being a RH fan for many years).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Chambers" <ben### [at] pacificwebguycom> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Invisible [mailto:voi### [at] devnull]
> > I still don't entirely "get" why you would ever recompile the OS
> > kernel.
> > I mean, all it does is memory allocation, interrupt scheduling, etc.
> > What's to change?
>
> <sarcasm>
> It's because the Linux crowd haven't figured out how to properly make
> device drivers yet. Instead, the *kernel* is the device driver for
> every single thing in your computer.
> </sarcasm>
>
> <serious>
> If you ever need to add hardware, you have to recompile your kernel to
> support it.
> If you remove hardware, you should recompile your kernel not to support
> it, otherwise it might be a kb or two larger than it needs to be.
> </serious>
Seriously, have you guys ever heard of loadable kernel modules?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loadable_kernel_module
Linux has not been a purely monolithic kernel for, what, more than a decade?
And if you don't need something, just unload it, not recompile the friggin'
kernel.
I've never had the need to recompile any kernel, despite hardware upgrades.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> OpenOffice takes couple of hours IIRC.
>> ...and OpenOffice must be absolutely gigantic.
>
> Yes, it is a mammoth.
>
> grunka ~ # du -hs /var/tmp/portage/app-office/openoffice-3.0.0/work/ooo/
> 2.6G /var/tmp/portage/app-office/openoffice-3.0.0/work/ooo/
Please tell me that isn't 2.6 GB just for the source code...
> grunka src # du -hs linux-2.6.26-gentoo-r4/
> 316M linux-2.6.26-gentoo-r4/
>
> That is non-compiled, non-configured set, ie. just kernel sources
> equipped with Gentoo's patchset. So yes, it is huge :).
Are you *kidding* me?? 300 MB just for the source code?!
Does it also make you coffee in the morning? :-P
>> Ah yes, I'm forgetting: The Linux "kernel" isn't just the OS kernel. How
>> silly of me...
>
> Linux kernel is a monolithic kernel, not a microkernel.
In other words, the Linux "kernel" isn't just the kernel, it's also all
the device drivers. No wonder it's so big.
>> (It probably contains drivers for every piece of hardware known to
>> mankind, even if you don't need it. And I'll bet even if you disable
>> those parts, it still has to process that part of the source code to
>> decide whether or not to compile it...)
>
> No, it doesn't :(. That's one reason why Windows is still much more
> widely used in workstations and especially in gaming computers.
Erm, no... I think you'll find that the reason why gaming computers use
Windows is that almost all games are written to run under Windows. :-P
I would suggest that DirectX is a way bigger reason than kernel support
for particular bits of hardware.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> Was using Gentoo. And I'm pretty sure they give you a GCC binary
>> pre-built. (How would you build anything else otherwise?) Also the C
>> standard libraries, possibly. I can't remember.
>
> If it was a stage 1 install, I think they give you a prebuilt binary,
> but you then use that to compile GCC and switch to that.
Yeah, likely.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Warp" <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote in message
news:493d9f82@news.povray.org...
> I really can't understand why some people seem to be constantly compiling
> the linux kernel.
Well if you're talking Linux I've not gen'ed a new kernel ever .... now Unix
that's a different story. The company I worked at had a very large installed
base. We settled on a desktop kernel and a server kernel. Some db products,
Oracle and Informix, required some kernel params to be bumped up. It's been
a while but I remember nproc, nfiles and a couple other params that needed
tuning. So I'd add that it's fairly common in Unix world, and from reading
this thread it would seem less common on Linux.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
