Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > On 23/02/12 12:44, Mick wrote: >> On Thursday 23 Feb 2012 10:22:40 Willie WY Wong wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 07:22:27PM -0500, Penguin Lover Philip Webb >> squawked: >>>> I compiled FF 10.0.1 on amd64 without any problems : >>>> it needed 3,61 GB disk space for the link stage >>>> & most/all of my 2 GB memory. >>> >>> Argh. 3.6 diskspace and 2G memory? I guess it is finally getting to >>> the point that my laptop cannot build firefox. Time to switch to the >>> -bin I guess. >> >> I've only got something like 625M RAM and around 4G disk space (for >> var/portage). I used 750M from that 4G for adding swap. Eventually FF >> compiled fine. >> >> The irony is that older boxen which would benefit most from building from >> source are constrained in resources to achieve this and have to resort to >> installing bin packages. > > I doubt that the bin package will be slower than the one compiled from > source. I predict the reverse, in fact. The bin package will perform > better. > > Why don't you test it with an online browser benchmark? You can > quickpkg the current installed version, emerge the -bin version. You > can later emerge -C the -bin version and emerge -K the one you quickpkg'ed. > > >
I try to avoid pre-compiled software for the opposite reason of what you think. What makes you think that software designed and compiled to utilize all the good parts of my system would run slower than a software designed to run on any CPU/hardware out there? This is the first time I ever saw anyone make this claim. Can you shed some light on this? Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! Miss the compile output? Hint: EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"
