On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 11:03:47PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 14:51:33 -0400, Willie Wong wrote:
>
> > BUT!!! It seems that there is a bug with genlop and newer versions of
> > portage because some issues with a sandbox lockfile. Search for
> > "genlop sandbox" on bugs.gento
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 14:51:33 -0400, Willie Wong wrote:
> BUT!!! It seems that there is a bug with genlop and newer versions of
> portage because some issues with a sandbox lockfile. Search for
> "genlop sandbox" on bugs.gentoo.org for more info. In any case, for
> the time being, until the bug is
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 05:33:14PM +, Fernando Meira wrote:
> I would say that most of the emerged packages were emerged before.. but
> maybe not that much so that genlop could be accurate. Also, a new compiler
> was being used.. no idea how much can that change the performance.
That might.
On 8/25/05, Willie Wong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 11:51:32AM +, Fernando Meira wrote:> I have a P4-2.4GHz laptop.> I forgot to say that the estimation time was made by genlop. And was quite> wrong! It took something like 11h to compile 112 packages, (though I've
> inter
On Thu, Aug 25, 2005 at 11:51:32AM +, Fernando Meira wrote:
> I have a P4-2.4GHz laptop.
> I forgot to say that the estimation time was made by genlop. And was quite
> wrong! It took something like 11h to compile 112 packages, (though I've
> interrupted while compiling gcc-3.3.6.. so it had
5 matches
Mail list logo
