sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
- From: julian AT openit.de (Julian v. Bock)
- To: Phil/CERisE/KG6MBQ <cerise AT littlegreenmen.armory.com>
- Cc: Source Mage Discuss <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] tmpfs
- Date: Thu, 25 Jul 2002 11:49:31 +0200
Hi
>>>>> "P" == Phil/CERisE/KG6MBQ <cerise AT littlegreenmen.armory.com> writes:
P> I can think of a couple of work arounds. You could chroot into
P> a directory and install things to the appropriate places. You
P> could then relink things accordingly.
*complicated*
P> You could create a new
P> directory as you would with tempfs and do all sorcery related work
P> within it. You could then delete leftovers accordingly.
I would have to do that manually. It would be done automatically after
a reboot.
P> You could
P> have a temporary file mounted as a loopback and do all work in
P> there.
In what way is this better than tmpfs? Furthermore, it would be
slower since there is an extra device layer (loopback).
P> The important part here is that Sorcery as a good packaging
P> system should clean up after itself.
It should not clean up after a compilation or installation failure.
How are you supposed to debug the problem without the source
directory?
P> Tempfs is a simple idea
P> thrown at a problem.
That is why I like it. It is much simpler than any of the above.
P> I believe that the benchmarks have bourne out
P> that using the native filesystem may be a better idea.
The benchmarks don't clearly show that tmpfs is slower. Furthermore,
the differences are so minimal that you might be able to compile your
kde or gnome suite a whole minute faster.
P> I don't
P> believe that having Sorcery clean up after itself and having
P> Sorcery use the native filesystem are mutually exclusive.
Sorcery does not do the cleanup. Again, I am speaking of the
directories that are left after a compilation failed.
Of course, it could be done without tmpfs, but tmpfs is sooo simple.
Even if it is slightly slower (< 1% from what I have seen so far;
sometimes even slightly faster) there is no reason to throw it out.
Julian
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] tmpfs
, (continued)
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] tmpfs,
Eric Sandall, 07/24/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] tmpfs, Jonathan Evraire, 07/24/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] tmpfs, bluebird, 07/25/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] tmpfs, Andrew Stitt, 07/24/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] tmpfs, Phil/CERisE/KG6MBQ, 07/24/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] tmpfs,
Aaron Brice, 07/25/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] tmpfs, Thomas Matysik, 07/25/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] tmpfs, Phil/CERisE/KG6MBQ, 07/25/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] tmpfs,
Julian v. Bock, 07/25/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] tmpfs,
Phil/CERisE/KG6MBQ, 07/25/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] tmpfs,
Julian v. Bock, 07/25/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] tmpfs, Julian v. Bock, 07/25/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] tmpfs,
Aaron Brice, 07/25/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] tmpfs, Phil/CERisE/KG6MBQ, 07/25/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] tmpfs,
Julian v. Bock, 07/25/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] tmpfs,
Laurent Wandrebeck, 07/25/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] tmpfs, Phil/CERisE/KG6MBQ, 07/26/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] tmpfs,
Phil/CERisE/KG6MBQ, 07/25/2002
- [SM-Discuss] tmpfs, Andrew Stitt, 07/25/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] tmpfs,
Sergey A. Lipnevich, 07/25/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] tmpfs, Dufflebunk, 07/25/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] tmpfs, Ari Steinberg, 07/25/2002
- Re: [SM-Discuss] tmpfs, Eric Sandall, 07/25/2002
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] tmpfs,
Eric Sandall, 07/24/2002
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.