[Replicant] Replicant Digest, Vol 351, Issue 1

[Joonas Kylmälä]

Hi,

I still don't see a reason to include it in the Replicant build process.
Why newer version is better? Without any good reason to fork the
upstream code we should not do this because it leaves us to maintain it.
Although almost nobody is probably working anymore on the replicant 6
upstream source code so this might not apply in this particular case. I
also have the concern how much we can trust this place where ccache is
coming from.

AFAIK, the only thing missing from next Replicant 6 release was some
llvmpipe patch so after that is done in my opionion we should put our
efforts to replicant 10.

Joonas

Tobias Tefke:
> Hi,
> 
> I'm writing this mail as reply to Replicant Digest, Vol 351, Issue 1.
> 
> 
> I've been using ccache for several years now and I never had issues,
> 
> so based on my experience I can say ccache is reliable.
> 
> 
> The only downside is that ccache needs around 10GB of disk space for
> Replicant 6,
> 
> but the speedup that ccache provides is worth it in my opinion.
> 
> 
> I didn't know you mirror projects you use, but it makes sense, of course.
> 
> The reason why I prefer building ccache from source is that the versions
> distributed with many GNU/Linux distributions are often not the latest
> version.
> 
> 
> However, the ccache.mk file already provides a mechanism to prefer an
> installed version of ccache over a custom build,
> 
> so we could use that to use the distributions version of ccache if it is
> provided.
> 
> 
> In the attachment you can find two patches:
> 
> - one that tracks the ccache mirror from contrib
> 
> - one for the build environment that prefers the distributions ccache
> over a custom build
> 
> 
> Yours,
> 
> Tobias
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Replicant mailing list
> Replicant at osuosl.org
> https://lists.osuosl.org/mailman/listinfo/replicant
>