From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail.chez-thomas.org (hermes.mlbassoc.com [64.234.241.98]) by mx1.pokylinux.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5DB54C800AC for ; Thu, 19 May 2011 09:05:17 -0500 (CDT) Received: by mail.chez-thomas.org (Postfix, from userid 999) id 1C62F16603C3; Thu, 19 May 2011 08:05:15 -0600 (MDT) X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2-r929478 (2010-03-31) on hermes.chez-thomas.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.9 required=4.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=unavailable version=3.3.2-r929478 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail.chez-thomas.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5C4E716603BF; Thu, 19 May 2011 08:05:14 -0600 (MDT) Message-ID: <4DD5239A.30404@mlbassoc.com> Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 08:05:14 -0600 From: Gary Thomas User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101209 Fedora/3.1.7-0.35.b3pre.fc13 Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Poky Project Subject: RPM vs IPK X-BeenThere: poky@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Poky build system developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 19 May 2011 14:05:19 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Building Poky for various targets, I see some striking differences based on the packaging. I'm building for the beagleboard (RPM) and my own OMAP/3530 (IPK), so everything is the same for these packages (same compiler, architecture, etc), only the package method differs. This was built on an otherwise idle box 4-way (Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz), with BB_NUMBER_THREADS ?= "4" PARALLEL_MAKE ?= "-j 4" Each of these tests are a complete build of the package, with all dependencies already built. For example, I use this sequence: % bitbake perl % bitbake perl -c clean % rm sstate-cache/sstate-perl-arm* % time bitbake perl perl - RPM IPK real 12m15.520s real 9m43.228s user 5m42.988s user 4m40.692s sys 3m56.636s sys 2m19.860s eglibc RPM IPK real 32m19.984s real 23m52.124s user 15m32.732s user 20m48.214s sys 17m28.087s sys 9m3.936s Bottom line - it seems to take 20-30% longer to package via RPM. I know there are reasons and tradeoffs for different packaging methods, but 30% extra? -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Gary Thomas | Consulting for the MLB Associates | Embedded world ------------------------------------------------------------