Re: How should stalin be handled on slower architectures?
Rob Browning wrote:
>For those that don't know, stalin is very demanding on the build host.
>It consists of one 22MB C file, so it does take a *very* long time to
>build on older architectures. Accordingly, I try to be careful to not
>upload new versions very frequently.
>
>
[snip]
>Thoughts? Any relevant policy I might have overlooked?
>
>
My first comment would be: "For Pete's sake, a 22MB C file!"
The problem is that the source code is basically one humongous function,
at least at first glance. On my box, it took about a few minutes to
compile and over 320MB of RAM. Since there is no m68k machine with more
than 256MB, this will cause gcc to use swap, a lot, slowing things down
even further.
So, it is *possible* to build stalin on all arch, but it might not be
practical.
This raises some other questions. Do we need bloated software on arches
where it will not be used? For example, mysql-admin or mysqlcc[1]. Would
software like this be even used on m68k when mysql-client is available?
Or is the build process on old archs more informational (eg. portability
problems) than practical?
- Adam
[1] - picked my packages on purpose to avoid flames :)
--
Building your applications one byte at a time
http://www.galacticasoftware.com
Reply to: