Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2011 01:36:02 -0400 From: Eitan Adler <lists@eitanadler.com> To: schaecsn@gmx.net Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: The cost of a source based package system Message-ID: <CAF6rxgnTLTV30fNKUkhcCSD8hL351vJ8Wu0fzAc_igVUvY6X5Q@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20110908045328.C6E2E1EE8F1@keeper.homelinux.org> References: <20110908045328.C6E2E1EE8F1@keeper.homelinux.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 12:53 AM, Stefan Schaeckeler <schaecsn@gmx.net> wrot= e: > Hi all, please don't take this posting too serious. I was just curious ..= . Thanks for the disclaimer. > . Among other things, I measured the "cost of a source based package syst= em", i.e. I was comparing the energy cost of installing ports from source v= s binary packages (setup, see below). Make sure to measure multiple times, with a cold cache, and calculate =CE=B1 and p values ;) .... > The number of ports and binary packages varies slightly. I don't know why= . This only introduces a small error. Likely due to "build dependencies" which are not needed when installing via packages. --=20 Eitan Adler
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?CAF6rxgnTLTV30fNKUkhcCSD8hL351vJ8Wu0fzAc_igVUvY6X5Q>