On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:41:41 -0800, Brian Harring <ferri...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 04:54:38PM +0100, Torsten Veller wrote: >> Can we please move the mips profiles from "dev" to "exp" in >> profiles/profiles.desc? >> >> >> The ~150 mips development profiles increase the time for a >> `repoman -d full` run in dev-perl/ from three to five minutes. That is >> an increase of roughly 66 percent. >> repoman further prints more than 2000 lines of output for two keywording >> problems. > > Quick pcheck visibility scan of the full tree, stats follow: > > mips profiles still enabled: > * 116191 seperate dependency issues, 1 line per profile/dependency > issue > * roughly 2m39s run time > > mips profiles disabled (leaving mips-irix however) > * 9550 seperate dependency issues, 1 line per profile/dependency issue > * roughly 1m54s run time. > > So... mips accounts for about 30% of the pcheck runtime, and *92%* of > known visibility issues. As for the runtime difference between > pcheck/repoman, pcheck has some tricks internally to reduce the # of > profiles it has to scan down to just the unique USE/mask set- I'd > expect the mips impact to be far larger w/out that trick in place. > > At the very least if it's going to be kept around, experimental or > not, the number of profiles in use there *really* needs reduction- > mips has roughly 117 profiles listed in profiles.desc out of 217- > literally ~54% of all dev/stable/experimental profiles.
I agree, I wasn't sure why so many profiles were added[1] for a dead team (for all intensive purposes). Seems quite silly to me to leave them as 'dev' status. If a member of the mips team would reply to this thread, that would be good. (and surprising to me :) I would guess that it would be far easier to work in an overlay at this point. I would also guess that if there are ANY mips users out there that they would have to use some other ACCEPT_KEYWORDS value because the shape of ~mips is so...bad. -Jeremy [1]: http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/profiles/profiles.desc?r1=1.151&r2=1.152 > > Either way, stats to chew on. > ~harring
