On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 2:07 PM, <v...@ukr.net> wrote: > Hello! > > On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 09:07:33 -0500 > Michael Mol <mike...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> I'll venture a guess that it may have approached 9GB either with some >> short-lived files, or *would* have approached 9GB with a different USE >> flag or other configuration combination. >> ... >> Ok, then I'll narrow my guess to the size required being dependent on >> USE flag combinations. >> > Yes, I thought so too, but I use the same set of USE flags for quite > a long time, and previous versions of LO really needed the stated > amount of free space. At least, more than 6 GB. And the last version > (3.4.4) not only needs about a half of the stated space, it needs > *less* space than the previous versions. > It may mean that the newer version is *substantially* reworked > though, which is very good. :)
I forget the name of the tool that predicts compile times based on package sets and USE flags. Perhaps it could be expanded to collect data and predict disk requirements? It'd almost require stracing the compile process tree or FAMing the build directory tree, though; polling with 'du' might miss a peak usage point. (And would certainly slow things down) -- :wq
