Re: Tracing where build time is spent

[Luboš Luňák <l.lunak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Monday 17 of February 2020, Caolán McNamara wrote:
> On Mon, 2020-02-17 at 11:51 +0100, Luboš Luňák wrote:
> > On Sunday 16 of February 2020, Noel Grandin wrote:
> > > On Sun, 16 Feb 2020 at 16:33, Luboš Luňák <l.lunak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > wrote:
> > > > - It takes 3 minutes to unpack the 100MiB bzip2 tarball of boost,
> > > > which
> > > > unpacks to about 0.5GiB of stuff including generated html docs.
> > > > It would be a cheap gain to get rid of all doc/ example/ test/
> > > > and repack it as .xz .
> > > >
> > > > Or maybe teach the unpacker to skip those?
> >
> >  I think you cannot teach unpacker to skip parts of .tar.XYZ , it
> > pretty much always has to unpack the whole thing to get the .tar.
>
> could use the upstream zips instead, that would allow selectively
> skipping decompression, though the zips are correspondingly larger than
> the tar.xz

 And is there any worthwhile gain in insisting on using upstream tarballs? 
Simply repacking seems better to me in all regards except for requiring few 
seconds to run a script whenever the tarball is updated, which is way less 
often then the archive gets used.

-- 
 Luboš Luňák
 l.lunak@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice