On Tue, Apr 02, 2002 at 03:48:49AM +0200, Paul Russell wrote: > On Monday 01 April 2002 18:23, Junichi Uekawa wrote: > > Martin Schulze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> cum veritate scripsit: > > > The same package: almost never > > > the same file: often, with every new compile. > > > > > > Just take into account that a package contains 50 .c files that need > > > to be compiled. An updated package often only changes packaging or > > > 10% of .c files, leaving 45 remaining the same. These 45 files would > > > benefit of ccache. > > > > I'm pretty doubtful if ccache is able to cache so much > > data. We have 5000 source packages. > > Looking at my testing PPC box with grep-available, we have only about > 8GB total Installed-Size. So I would expect a ccache of 1GB (the default) to > be a net gain, given that not all packages are built with the same > regularity. 10GB should definitely do it, well within ccache's capability.
glibc packages total installed size is only a few dozen megs. However, the source builds takes up about 600megs. XFree86, about 1.6gigs. There's no way to sanely cache our builds. -- Debian - http://www.debian.org/ Linux 1394 - http://linux1394.sourceforge.net/ Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
