[gentoo-user] Re: firefox.bin vs firefox
Alan McKinnon writes: > On 18/12/2014 04:45, Harry Putnam wrote: >> Is there any advantage one way or the other emerging firefox.bin vs firefox? > > Depends on your needs: > > firefox: > - pro: you get all the USE flags > - pro: you don't get bundled libs from Mozilla, the ebuild can use > system libs > - pro: the compiled binaries are integrated into gentoo like other ebuilds > - con: slow compiles. I have 8 i7 cores and 16G. the merge takes 20-35 > minutes... > > > > firefox-bin: > - pro: fast install. It's a binary package > - con: you get all of Mozilla's bundled libs > - con: No USE, no choices. If Mozilla eg decides to ship with > pulseaudio, then that is what you must have on your end > - con: poor integration with the rest of your system. Files go where > Mozilla says they go, the devs can only do so much to make stuff standard. > > > As I see it, go with firefox unless you can't spend the cpu cycles to > build it locally. That's true of almost all -bin packages Thanks posters... and especially this compete walk-thru. Looks like its best to stick to the gentoo way of doing things and go with non `bin'.
[gentoo-user] Re: firefox.bin vs firefox
On Wed, 17 Dec 2014 23:59:59 +0200 Alan McKinnon wrote: > On 18/12/2014 04:45, Harry Putnam wrote: > > Is there any advantage one way or the other emerging firefox.bin vs > > firefox? > > Depends on your needs: > > firefox: > - pro: you get all the USE flags > - pro: you don't get bundled libs from Mozilla, the ebuild can use > system libs > - pro: the compiled binaries are integrated into gentoo like other > ebuilds > - con: slow compiles. I have 8 i7 cores and 16G. the merge takes 20-35 > minutes... > > firefox-bin: > - pro: fast install. It's a binary package > - con: you get all of Mozilla's bundled libs > - con: No USE, no choices. If Mozilla eg decides to ship with > pulseaudio, then that is what you must have on your end > - con: poor integration with the rest of your system. Files go where > Mozilla says they go, the devs can only do so much to make stuff > standard. Those are good lists. The only thing I can think to add is that firefox-bin is built with "Profile Guided Optimization"; the firefox package has the pgo USE flag for that, but it's forced off because it doesn't work and upstream doesn't support it. Building with PGO roughly doubles compile time, as firefox has to be built twice. I don't know what optimization gains there are. > As I see it, go with firefox unless you can't spend the cpu cycles to > build it locally. That's true of almost all -bin packages +1
[gentoo-user] Re: firefox.bin vs firefox
On Thu, 18 Dec 2014 03:59:58 -0500 cov...@ccs.covici.com wrote: > That is interesting, but firefox requires 8g I think of temp space, > the very package which takes so long. I have 16g of memory, but I > wonder if my whole system would start to crawl. I would try it. I have only 8GiB. I used to build firefox in RAM, when it only required 4GiB in the tempdir, which was only a few months ago. Then I had to switch to building on disk. My build times went up from ~16 minutes to ~21.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: firefox.bin vs firefox
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 01:46:45AM -0500, Harry Putnam wrote: > Alan McKinnon writes: > > > On 18/12/2014 04:45, Harry Putnam wrote: > >> Is there any advantage one way or the other emerging firefox.bin vs > >> firefox? > > > > Depends on your needs: > > […] > > firefox-bin: > > […] > > - con: poor integration with the rest of your system. Files go where > > Mozilla says they go, the devs can only do so much to make stuff standard. > > > > > > As I see it, go with firefox unless you can't spend the cpu cycles to > > build it locally. That's true of almost all -bin packages > > Thanks posters... and especially this compete walk-thru. > > Looks like its best to stick to the gentoo way of doing things and go > with non `bin'. The only real problem I have with Firefox-bin (though I have no idea whether the non-bin is any better) is that it doesn't install as many icon files, which usually leaves me with too small an icon in KDE’s Alt-Tab switcher. I don’t have this problem on Arch. I once -- just for fun -- compiled Firefox on an Atom N450. This has no effect on the loading time of 20 seconds. ^^ -- Gruß | Greetings | Qapla’ Please do not share anything from, with or about me with any social network. I think, therefore I am at the wrong place. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: firefox.bin vs firefox
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 On 18/12/14 06:10, Frank Steinmetzger wrote: > I once -- just for fun -- compiled Firefox on an Atom N450. This > has no effect on the loading time of 20 seconds. ^^ And how long did it take? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJUkqdjAAoJEK64IL1uI2hacwoIAJpTGmlC+e0EzyIDEcOJDfcK HJtlOl7T31oAGxtz51hMko0Nj0bh4dLnDVl7KTTnwfU8VCIvotyFsHweqWx4Cn2b jHFGou/eLD9DHFtA89xyhSQmY7ywq3SIK3ywZDmiHAOI80iMzlPfB82gTSzetVe9 +XMG2GjTZ7YZa/KcPyjAFcapUh0A7y4aYGW71XI1gqUI6nvdRJY3kGuVV1Xrw3Zc dXgilcpjk9n/Jyj2NtxjNsZQyGQTiz5TqICkUURKg2ZxH/YJniQLGutVnJp+vnfF q/OzH6trZ6frbKqkqeOfYrARxbrpnsO+Gz7mr7dPDr3SVyxox92+9zJTwbgpkJ0= =0Sfj -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: firefox.bin vs firefox
On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 01:07:34PM +0300, the wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA256 > > On 18/12/14 06:10, Frank Steinmetzger wrote: > > I once -- just for fun -- compiled Firefox on an Atom N450. This > > has no effect on the loading time of 20 seconds. ^^ > > And how long did it take? Can’t really remember, I’d have to fire the baby up in order to look (I don’t use it productively anymore). Maybe 15–20 hours, but I could confuse that with the compile time of LibreOffice. -- Gruß | Greetings | Qapla’ Please do not share anything from, with or about me with any social network. Friends may come and go, but enemies accumulate. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
