 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>> Just getting Firefox to *compile* is quite a pain afaik...
>
> emerge firefox
>
The package is actually called mozilla-firefox. And it compiles pretty
quickly:
Sun Oct 18 06:14:25 2009 >>> www-client/mozilla-firefox-3.0.14
merge time: 45 seconds.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>>> Just getting Firefox to *compile* is quite a pain afaik...
>> emerge firefox
>>
>
> The package is actually called mozilla-firefox. And it compiles pretty
> quickly:
>
> Sun Oct 18 06:14:25 2009 >>> www-client/mozilla-firefox-3.0.14
> merge time: 45 seconds.
Interesting... It took approx 7 hours on my PC.
Perhaps you already have 100% of the dependencies compiled already?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>
> Interesting... It took approx 7 hours on my PC.
>
> Perhaps you already have 100% of the dependencies compiled already?
>
Yes, that's *only* the firefox package. It's also possible that my PC is
faster than yours.
Noted, XMMS takes longer :):
Sun Oct 18 08:55:33 2009 >>> media-sound/xmms-1.2.11
merge time: 51 seconds.
And even OpenOffice.org took under 1 hour:
Thu Oct 15 14:35:38 2009 >>> app-office/openoffice-3.1.1
merge time: 53 minutes and 28 seconds.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/18/09 01:26, Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> Just getting Firefox to *compile* is quite a pain afaik...
>> emerge firefox
>>
>
> The package is actually called mozilla-firefox. And it compiles pretty
> quickly:
>
> Sun Oct 18 06:14:25 2009>>> www-client/mozilla-firefox-3.0.14
> merge time: 45 seconds.
I don't know if you're joking or not, but that's highly misleading.
Firefox needs xulrunner (and they release a new xulrunner with each new
Firefox). xulrunner takes a while:
Fri Aug 7 11:27:09 2009 >>> net-libs/xulrunner-1.9.1.2
merge time: 1 hour, 4 minutes and 47 seconds.
--
Be independent! No, not that way! This way!
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
>
> I don't know if you're joking or not, but that's highly misleading.
> Firefox needs xulrunner (and they release a new xulrunner with each new
> Firefox). xulrunner takes a while:
>
> Fri Aug 7 11:27:09 2009 >>> net-libs/xulrunner-1.9.1.2
> merge time: 1 hour, 4 minutes and 47 seconds.
>
>
Well yes, it surely does.
Sun Oct 18 06:13:40 2009 >>> net-libs/xulrunner-1.9.0.14
merge time: 6 minutes and 27 seconds.
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/18/09 13:05, Eero Ahonen wrote:
> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>> I don't know if you're joking or not, but that's highly misleading.
>> Firefox needs xulrunner (and they release a new xulrunner with each new
>> Firefox). xulrunner takes a while:
>>
>> Fri Aug 7 11:27:09 2009>>> net-libs/xulrunner-1.9.1.2
>> merge time: 1 hour, 4 minutes and 47 seconds.
>>
>>
>
> Well yes, it surely does.
>
> Sun Oct 18 06:13:40 2009>>> net-libs/xulrunner-1.9.0.14
> merge time: 6 minutes and 27 seconds.
Try installing a newer version? Not sure why it's so fast for you -
other than perhaps you have a much faster machine...
On mine it typically takes an hour.
--
If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 10/18/09 13:05, Eero Ahonen wrote:
>> Neeum Zawan wrote:
>>> I don't know if you're joking or not, but that's highly misleading.
>>> Firefox needs xulrunner (and they release a new xulrunner with each new
>>> Firefox). xulrunner takes a while:
>>>
>>> Fri Aug 7 11:27:09 2009>>> net-libs/xulrunner-1.9.1.2
>>> merge time: 1 hour, 4 minutes and 47 seconds.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Well yes, it surely does.
>>
>> Sun Oct 18 06:13:40 2009>>> net-libs/xulrunner-1.9.0.14
>> merge time: 6 minutes and 27 seconds.
>
> Try installing a newer version? Not sure why it's so fast for you -
> other than perhaps you have a much faster machine...
Maybe he has ccache.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 10/18/09 18:10, Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>>> Sun Oct 18 06:13:40 2009>>> net-libs/xulrunner-1.9.0.14
>>> merge time: 6 minutes and 27 seconds.
>> Try installing a newer version? Not sure why it's so fast for you -
>> other than perhaps you have a much faster machine...
>
> Maybe he has ccache.
That would make some sense...except that I've enabled it as well.
Doesn't ccache only have a significant impact if you're recompiling the
same version?
--
When you die, you lose a very important part of your life.
-- Brooke Shields
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
>
> Try installing a newer version?
I will, when it comes as stable on amd64. And yes, this is a new
installation, so it's the first time Xulrunner compiled on this machine.
> Not sure why it's so fast for you -
> other than perhaps you have a much faster machine...
That's probably it ;). I'm running a new computer with C2Q Q9550
(2,83GHz) and have MAKEOPTS="-j5". These things are ridiculously fast
nowadays.
> On mine it typically takes an hour.
On my home server (Athlon64X2 4450e, 2,3GHz) it seems to have taken 36
minutes and 59 seconds on the first time, which makes sense compared to
C2Q. If youre running multicore, check that you have enabled multiple
threads (the MAKEOPTS option).
-Aero
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Neeum Zawan wrote:
> Doesn't ccache only have a significant impact if you're recompiling the
> same version?
It has an impact if an *individual file* hasn't been changed.
And changing comments without adding or removing lines counts as "not
changing".
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
