Adrian Bunk wrote: > It might help your case if you would describe why using more than one > core is not an option for you.
I have already explained that several times. The first one here, on a theoretical level: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=907829#57 Then I went ahead and built 96% of the archive using 1-CPU and 2-CPU machines (with similar CPU specs), wrote a web page showing the results, and included the link here: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=907829#151 and here: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=932795#5 But apparently you still didn't read it, so here is the direct link again: https://people.debian.org/~sanvila/single-cpu/ Simon McVittie wrote: > Roughly what proportion of Debian packages are failing to build in > this environment? > > Roughly how many of the failures are failure to compile (like #924325), > and how many are failing build-time tests and would likely have built > successfully if you had been using DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=nocheck > (like #907829)? I'll try to collect such info, but will need some time to sort out all the data. Simon McVittie wrote: > (a build that takes 10 minutes on one core will usually take more than > 5 minutes on two cores, because there are single-threaded bottlenecks > like the linker or documentation toolchains) Indeed. This is more or less what I tried to explain a lot of time ago. And now we have real data which fully confirms it. The practical implications of this is that we are currently forcing users to spend extra money if they want *assurance* that all the packages (and not just "most" of them) will build, which is a pity. Thanks.
