On Wed, 2019-05-08 at 11:54 +0200, Alexis Ballier wrote: > On Wed, 08 May 2019 11:41:41 +0200 > Michał Górny <mgo...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > > There's multilib that adds a lot of flags with a single eclass > > > change, but I'd guess the number of packages and flags is > > > constantly growing, so sooner or later you'll be hit by this again > > > and no multilib killing will help you then. > > > > > > I think it is more future proof to use the addition of multilib > > > flags to fix pkgcheck rather than actively reducing the number of > > > multilib flags to cope with its limitations. > > > > Then please do it, by all means. The reality is simple. If the tool > > is broken, you either fix it or stop doing what you know that breaks > > it. Being unable to do the former, and having no good replacement, > > I'd go for the latter. > > Well, why is it slow ? IO ? CPU ? Did you collect profiling data ?
CPU definitely. More detail than that, I don't and I don't have time to investigate. > Where are the scripts to repro the issue ? https://github.com/mgorny/pkgcore/tree/repo-mirror-ci https://github.com/mgorny/pkgcheck/tree/repo-mirror-ci (repo-mirror-ci branch in both cases) I suppose master branch suffers from the same problem but I didn't find time to check (and it is not very helpful until I find time to rebase all my fixes that weren't merged before refactoring everything). > > > Also, remember that multilib is not entirely about skype or slack, > > > this was made with multibin in mind too: for example an ABI may > > > perform better than another one on specific workflows (x32) and it > > > may make sense to use this abi for a specific binary (which would > > > be manually built for now). > > > > No, it weren't. Just because someone found it convenient to use the > > design beyond its original purpose doesn't mean it had a different > > purpose. Besides, how many 'multibin' packages do we have right now? > > It was, because portage multilib was doing this and claimed to have a > use for this. I am not talking of 'portage multilib'. I am talking of multilib-build implementation. If you are only concerned about the former, we can surely drop those abi_* flags that are irrelevant to it, can't we? > Its original purpose was generic enough to allow multibin > to be added easily. The number of multibin packages is only > relevant to show that this is not important enough for someone > to step up and do it: Everybody can easily build anything themselves > with the current implementation. Exactly. And that's why I believe having fast CI is more important than DIY multibin. If someone can 'easily build anything themselves', they can also add needed flags locally. -- Best regards, Michał Górny
