LibreOffice 3.4.4: required HDD space
 

Hello!
I decided to upgrade LibreOffice this week to the verstion 3.4.4.
Before trying to build this package, emerge performed the pre-check
of available space on my hard disk - 9GB. I did have this amount of
free space on the drive, but I noticed that after about 8 hours of
compiling it took only ~4 GB on my HDD. First of all, I thought that it
was compiling *really* slowly and that it hadn't even made a half of
the job. However, after about a half an hour it finished with success
and I noticed that altogether it took about 4.5 GB on HDD.
So it checked 9GB (and earlier versions of LO indeed needed almost
such amount of free space), but took only as much as 4.5 GB.

The question is: why?



P.S. Today I tried to install LO v.3.4.4 on the machine with about 6 GB
of free space. Emerge performed its regular pre-check and refused to
build the package. I changed the
CHECKREQS_DISK_BUILD="9G"
to
CHECKREQS_DISK_BUILD="5G"
in "libreoffice-3.4.4.2-r1.ebuild" and everything went fine.

Regards,
Vladimir

-----
<v_2e@ukr.net>

LibreOffice 3.4.4: required HDD space
 

111120 v_2e@ukr.net wrote:
> I decided to upgrade LibreOffice to 3.4.4.
> Before trying to build it, emerge performed the pre-check of available space
> on my hard disk - 9GB. I did have this amount of free space on the drive,
> but I noticed that after about 8 hours of compiling
> it took only ~4 GB on my HDD.

I ran into a similar problem, compounded by the fact
that it was checking the wrong HDD directory.
The solution was to update to the latest testing version of Portage,
when it checked the correct dir, which had enough space.
It needed c 3,5 GB ( 3,36 GB near the end, but I missed the peak),
which is the usual amount. It took 1 h 56 m with my Core 2 Duo CPU.

See Forum thread http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-6864358.html .

--
========================,,======================== ====================
SUPPORT ___________//___, Philip Webb
ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto
TRANSIT `-O----------O---' purslowatchassdotutorontodotca

LibreOffice 3.4.4: required HDD space
 

Am Sonntag 20 November 2011, 11:09:05 schrieb v_2e@ukr.net:
> Hello!
> I decided to upgrade LibreOffice this week to the verstion 3.4.4.
> Before trying to build this package, emerge performed the pre-check
> of available space on my hard disk - 9GB. I did have this amount of
> free space on the drive, but I noticed that after about 8 hours of
> compiling it took only ~4 GB on my HDD. First of all, I thought that it
> was compiling *really* slowly and that it hadn't even made a half of
> the job. However, after about a half an hour it finished with success
> and I noticed that altogether it took about 4.5 GB on HDD.
> So it checked 9GB (and earlier versions of LO indeed needed almost
> such amount of free space), but took only as much as 4.5 GB.
>
> The question is: why?
>
>
>
> P.S. Today I tried to install LO v.3.4.4 on the machine with about 6 GB
> of free space. Emerge performed its regular pre-check and refused to
> build the package. I changed the
> CHECKREQS_DISK_BUILD="9G"
> to
> CHECKREQS_DISK_BUILD="5G"
> in "libreoffice-3.4.4.2-r1.ebuild" and everything went fine.
>
> Regards,
> Vladimir
>
> -----
> <v_2e@ukr.net>


no need to edit ebuilds:
I_KNOW_WHAT_I_AM_DOING="yes"

in make.conf

--
#163933

LibreOffice 3.4.4: required HDD space
 

On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 4:09 AM, <v_2e@ukr.net> wrote:
> *Hello!
> *I decided to upgrade LibreOffice this week to the verstion 3.4.4.
> *Before trying to build this package, emerge performed the pre-check
> of available space on my hard disk - 9GB. I did have this amount of
> free space on the drive, but I noticed that after about 8 hours of
> compiling it took only ~4 GB on my HDD. First of all, I thought that it
> was compiling *really* slowly and that it hadn't even made a half of
> the job. However, after about a half an hour it finished with success
> and I noticed that altogether it took about 4.5 GB on HDD.
> *So it checked 9GB (and earlier versions of LO indeed needed almost
> such amount of free space), but took only as much as 4.5 GB.
>
> *The question is: why?

I'll venture a guess that it may have approached 9GB either with some
short-lived files, or *would* have approached 9GB with a different USE
flag or other configuration combination.

> P.S. Today I tried to install LO v.3.4.4 on the machine with about 6 GB
> of free space. Emerge performed its regular pre-check and refused to
> build the package. I changed the
> * *CHECKREQS_DISK_BUILD="9G"
> to
> * *CHECKREQS_DISK_BUILD="5G"
> in "libreoffice-3.4.4.2-r1.ebuild" and everything went fine.

Ok, then I'll narrow my guess to the size required being dependent on
USE flag combinations.

--
:wq

LibreOffice 3.4.4: required HDD space
 

> I_KNOW_WHAT_I_AM_DOING="yes"
> in make.conf

This feature makes me smile.

LibreOffice 3.4.4: required HDD space
 

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 09:07:33 -0500, Michael Mol wrote:

> Ok, then I'll narrow my guess to the size required being dependent on
> USE flag combinations.

Also CFLAGS and architecture, to a lesser extent.


--
Neil Bothwick

Indecision is the key to flexibility.

LibreOffice 3.4.4: required HDD space
 

On 20 November 2011 18:32, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:


On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 09:07:33 -0500, Michael Mol wrote:



> Ok, then I'll narrow my guess to the size required being dependent on

> USE flag combinations.



Also CFLAGS and architecture, to a lesser extent.
Seeing as the ebuild is 'aware' of CFLAGS and USE, it would be nice if it would use that information (roughly) to determine how much space to check for.*


4-9GiB is a pretty wide range. *

LibreOffice 3.4.4: required HDD space
 

Hello!

On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 09:07:33 -0500
Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'll venture a guess that it may have approached 9GB either with some
> short-lived files, or *would* have approached 9GB with a different USE
> flag or other configuration combination.
> ...
> Ok, then I'll narrow my guess to the size required being dependent on
> USE flag combinations.
>
Yes, I thought so too, but I use the same set of USE flags for quite
a long time, and previous versions of LO really needed the stated
amount of free space. At least, more than 6 GB. And the last version
(3.4.4) not only needs about a half of the stated space, it needs
*less* space than the previous versions.
It may mean that the newer version is *substantially* reworked
though, which is very good. :)

Regards,
Vladimir

-----
<v_2e@ukr.net>

LibreOffice 3.4.4: required HDD space
 

On Nov 20, 2011 2:04 PM, "James Broadhead" <jamesbroadhead@gmail.com> wrote:

>

> On 20 November 2011 18:32, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:

>>

>> On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 09:07:33 -0500, Michael Mol wrote:

>>

>> > Ok, then I'll narrow my guess to the size required being dependent on

>> > USE flag combinations.

>>

>> Also CFLAGS and architecture, to a lesser extent.

>

>

> Seeing as the ebuild is 'aware' of CFLAGS and USE, it would be nice if it would use that information (roughly) to determine how much space to check for.*

>

> 4-9GiB is a pretty wide range. *


Imractical; you'd have a count of possible sizes increase geometrically with the number of USE flags, and it's not going to be something so simple as "this adds N MB, this adds M MB..."

LibreOffice 3.4.4: required HDD space
 

On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 2:07 PM, <v_2e@ukr.net> wrote:
> *Hello!
>
> On Sun, 20 Nov 2011 09:07:33 -0500
> Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I'll venture a guess that it may have approached 9GB either with some
>> short-lived files, or *would* have approached 9GB with a different USE
>> flag or other configuration combination.
>> *...
>> Ok, then I'll narrow my guess to the size required being dependent on
>> USE flag combinations.
>>
> *Yes, I thought so too, but I use the same set of USE flags for quite
> a long time, and previous versions of LO really needed the stated
> amount of free space. At least, more than 6 GB. And the last version
> (3.4.4) not only needs about a half of the stated space, it needs
> *less* space than the previous versions.
> *It may mean that the newer version is *substantially* reworked
> though, which is very good. :)

I forget the name of the tool that predicts compile times based on
package sets and USE flags. Perhaps it could be expanded to collect
data and predict disk requirements? It'd almost require stracing the
compile process tree or FAMing the build directory tree, though;
polling with 'du' might miss a peak usage point. (And would certainly
slow things down)

--
:wq