<br /> apt-get -b source-dist-upgrade – Debian Planet

Welcome to Debian Planet

News for Debian. Stuff that *really* matters

Sponsorship

DP is sponsored by Xinit Systems.

Domains paid for and hosted by uklinux.net.

Buy your Debian merchandise at DebianShop.com.

Debian
These are important Debian sites one should not be without!

  • Official Debian site
  • Package search
  • Mailing list archives
  • Bug reports
  • Debian on CD
  • Debian Weekly News — excellent news source!
  • Unofficial APT sources
    (apt-get.org)

  • Developers’ Corner
  • Community
    Need help? You’re not alone on this planet.

  • Planet Debian
  • debianHELP
    (User support site)

  • Debian International
  • DebianForum.de
    (Deutsch)

  • DebianForum.dk
    (Dansk)

  • EsDebian
    (Español)

  • DebianWorld
    (Français)

  • Debian-Fr
    (Français)

  • MaximumDebian
    (Italiano)

  • DebianItalia
    (Italiano)
  • DebianUsers
    (한국어)

  • Debian-BR
    (Português)

  • DebianHOWTO
    (Deutsch)

  • Russian Debian
  • Debian-JP
    (日本語)
  • Debian Suisse
    (Suisse)
  • Contribute
    Got that latest or greatest scoop? Perhaps you have some important news for the Debian community? Submit a news item!

    Or perhaps you’ve written a rather ground breaking insight into some aspect of Debian and you feel compelled to share it with others? Knock up a longer editorial article and send it to the editors.

    General feedback should be sent to staff@debianplanet.org

    IRC
    The place to get help on a Debian problem (after reading docs) or to just chat and chill is #debian on irc.oftc.net.

    Many of the Debian Planet staff live there so pop by and say hello.

    Debian Planet also has its own channel on the same network called #debianplanet.

    Donate
    Support Debian through Bytemark Hosting. At least £7 will be given for each new account

    Syndicate
    XML

    apt-get -b source-dist-upgrade
    Submitted by Anonymous on Tuesday, November 27, 2001 – 13:54
    As we all us know, a lot of Debian users have Pentiums II, Athlons, etc, and our nice x86 Debian is fully built for 386, so there’s a lot of speed lost. Some movements grew up like the one who built the entire potato distribution for 586… but it’s not enought. Potato isnt unstable, 586 isn’t the same as 686… we can have more optimized code. By the way, a user can download and build for his own some packages and obtain suth optimizations, but it’s very boring to download and build the packages manually. Why not something like apt-get dist-upgrade what downloads, builds and installs the new source packages? Imagine a entire system build optiimized for your athlon… imagine it…
    DanielS: Just get sbuild and set up a personal build daemon, and feed it a list of every package you want to build.

    Control panel

    Comment viewing options:



    Select your prefered way to display the comments and click ‘Update settings’ to activate your changes.

    Subject: Check this 😉
    Author: NetVicious
    Date: Monday, 2002/06/03 – 14:08
    Article (in spanish)
    http://bulmalug.net/body.phtml?nIdNoticia=1113

    Script for making somethings
    http://mnm.uib.es/~gallir/debian/compilar

    You need to download (by hand) development packages for compile all correctly

    [ Please login, or register ]

    Subject: Re: apt-get -b source-dist-upgrade
    Author: ahurt
    Date: Tuesday, 2001/12/04 – 03:29
    OK. I’m getting the hang of this, now.

    What should I build first?

    I found this in src/mozilla-0.9.6/debian/scripts/archmap:

    arch=$(dpkg –print-gnu-build-architecture)

    So I got to thinking (second or third time this month!), went to the command-line, and did a ‘dpkg -print-gnu-build-architecture’.

    I got ‘i486’ on my Pentium-233MMX. Big surprise, I’m sure, for everyone here.

    So I’m thinking that I should build gcc first (since I’m going to use this for every other build?)

    Or should I build the deps first.

    Chicken, or the egg?

    Thanks, all, for letting me participate.

    ah

    [ Please login, or register ]

     

    Subject: Re: apt-get -b source-dist-upgrade
    Author: Anonymous
    Date: Saturday, 2001/12/08 – 03:57
    IMHO: The egg
    [ Please login, or register ]

    Subject: The Debian Planet Collaborative CPU Optimization Project
    Author: BobRobertson
    Date: Tuesday, 2001/12/04 – 00:49
    The kernel is already available in multiple versions for CPU, I’m quite happy to see that myself. Thank you Kernel Package Maintainers from the bottom of my stack.

    However, recompiling a long list of packages for specific CPU’s, when they will run (and run rather well if not perfectly) as 386 binaries, is a waste of their time. I might say that keeping the kernel in multiple versions is a waste of their time too, but having built kernels I am very happy to let them do it.

    So what is left of generally used, common things that benefit from being recompiled? I read here “libraries”, maybe the primary X systems. Ok, sounds good.

    Since the command line tools exist to download source, compile and install a specific package, rather than argue about what the likely speed gain is let’s put together a list, script like, of the command line entries to update the most common and/or most effective packages to recompile.

    If (installed package x) = (latest package x on server)
    Then (get source; compile source; install)
    If (installed package y) …..

    I cannot imagine that even a 5% increase in speed of X wouldn’t be a GoodThing(tm), since X effects everything when it’s running, and for lots of people X is the application they use most. That and the primary libraries would be first on the list if the arguments in this thread are any indication.

    One of the biggest gripes against Micro$oft is their use of hardware to excuse abominable programming practices. Here is a very simple and effective idea, easily hosted as a text file on Debian Planet itself. It leverages the greatest benefit of Debian, online packages easily accessed individually, already tested by hundreds of brave volunteers.

    Call it the Debian Planet Colaborative CPU Speed Project or something. “It’s time for Golfing With God, with the Reverend Dr. Jonny Fever…”

    Bob-

    [ Please login, or register ]

    Subject: Re: dbuild rocks! thanks for hint DanielS
    Author: Anonymous
    Date: Thursday, 2001/11/29 – 19:55
    .
    [ Please login, or register ]

    Subject: off topic compiler optimization
    Author: Anonymous
    Date: Thursday, 2001/11/29 – 16:13
    bye the way are they someone who know good flag for compiler ?
    I use to put that
    -O2 -march=i686 -fomit-frame-pointer -Wall -malign-functions=4 -fschedule-insns2 -malign-double -fexpensive-optimization

    But I’m not really this is the best options.
    what do you think about that ?

    [ Please login, or register ]

    Subject: Re: apt-get -b source-dist-upgrade
    Author: Anonymous
    Date: Thursday, 2001/11/29 – 14:34
    You might want to look at the Debian policy proposal related to this issue, in the BTS as #120418.

    Take care,

    [ Please login, or register ]

     

    Subject: Care to provide a link?
    Author: BobRobertson
    Date: Tuesday, 2001/12/04 – 05:27
    What, prey tell, is a “BTS”? Can you provide a link, or more descriptive locator than just a number?

    Bob-

    [ Please login, or register ]

     

    Subject: Re: Care to provide a link?
    Author: ajk
    Date: Wednesday, 2001/12/05 – 21:42
    It’s the Bug Tracking system.
    [ Please login, or register ]

     

    Subject: Thank you.
    Author: Anonymous
    Date: Friday, 2001/12/07 – 07:15
    17576 different possible TLA’s (three letter acronyms) and people like the Denizens of Doom and the Department of Defense even re-use some of them.
    [ Please login, or register ]

    Subject: Great for Pine, nVidia drivers and friends
    Author: Anonymous
    Date: Thursday, 2001/11/29 – 07:50
    This would be great for packages that Debian is not allowed to distribute in binary form. Right now, whenever I feel like upgrading the Debian-provided nVidia drivers I have to manually re-build them from source. Granted, this is a lot easier than maintaining them by hand would be, but on the other hand it is a lot harder than having this process automated would be.

    I think this would be an excellent idea, but not because the optimization issue.

    Cheers //Johan

    [ Please login, or register ]

    Subject: Re: apt-get -b source-dist-upgrade
    Author: Anonymous
    Date: Wednesday, 2001/11/28 – 00:11
    Why not modify the apt code to allow for specific architecture compilations with the build option?

    This would allow the advanced end user to pick and choose which packages to tweak and which packages to leave normal.

    This would save development time, save storage space, and a lot of headaches 😀

    Stef

    [ Please login, or register ]

    Subject: Re: apt-get -b source-dist-upgrade
    Author: MBCook
    Date: Tuesday, 2001/11/27 – 21:03
    Well, apt is smart enough to be able to get x86 packages for me instead of alpha or ppc, so it seems like it should be easy to teach it to get 686 packages. If that’s not avalible then get 586. If that’s not there 386, etc.
    [ Please login, or register ]

     

    Subject: Re: apt-get -b source-dist-upgrade
    Author: Anonymous
    Date: Wednesday, 2001/11/28 – 18:22
    The Debian archive is already so huge that to put extra packages for 686/586/486/386/atholon/P4/SSE/MMX/etc would create such a huge archive that it would be impossible for it to get the wide spread mirroring it gets now.
    [ Please login, or register ]

     

    Subject: Re: apt-get -b source-dist-upgrade
    Author: Anonymous
    Date: Thursday, 2001/11/29 – 01:46
    This is why a apt-get -b source-dist-upgrade can be useful. The packages build in the users machines for the processor they use and there’s no need to keep packages for all procesors in the mirrors, and no need for a compilefarm. When debian can afford it, prepackaged accelerated binaries will be cool, but by the moment the fetch-&-build idea is very good.
    [ Please login, or register ]

     

    Subject: Re: apt-get -b source-dist-upgrade
    Author: Schoinobates2Volans
    Date: Tuesday, 2001/11/27 – 21:11
    Except there are no 586 or 686 packages.
    [ Please login, or register ]

    Subject: Re: apt-get -b source-dist-upgrade
    Author: piman
    Date: Tuesday, 2001/11/27 – 20:09
    # cat > some_file
    mozilla
    xserver-xfree86
    galeon
    fileutils
    ^D

    # for I in `cat some_file`; do apt-get -b source; if [ -e $I*deb ]; then dpkg -i $I*deb; fi; done

    There may be a little manual intervention required after this, still.

    [ Please login, or register ]

     

    Subject: Re: apt-get -b source-dist-upgrade
    Author: Anonymous
    Date: Tuesday, 2001/11/27 – 22:08
    this is not automatic like apt-get dist-upgrade. if someone writes it, it will kick ass, sure.
    [ Please login, or register ]

     

    Subject: Re: apt-get -b source-dist-upgrade
    Author: piman
    Date: Tuesday, 2001/11/27 – 20:14
    Oh, and

    # dpkg -l | awk -F” ” ‘{print $2}’ > some_file

    Will generate an appropriate some_file for your system.

    [ Please login, or register ]

     

    Subject: Re: apt-get -b source-dist-upgrade
    Author: Anonymous
    Date: Tuesday, 2001/11/27 – 20:58
    Not even close; too many truncated package names. More like:

    dpkg –get-selections | egrep -w ‘install|hold’ | awk ‘{print $1}’ > some_file

    [ Please login, or register ]

    Subject: Re: apt-get -b source-dist-upgrade
    Author: Anonymous
    Date: Tuesday, 2001/11/27 – 16:01
    Yes, you’re able today to build a list of packages for your architechture, but the idea is to do it all automatically, as easy as apt-get dist-upgrade. I think the idea is possible, and will kick ass if somebody writes it…
    [ Please login, or register ]

     

    Subject: Re: apt-get -b source-dist-upgrade
    Author: Anonymous
    Date: Tuesday, 2001/11/27 – 17:21
    Plus, if anyone implements the patch mechanism mentioned some time ago on debian-devel (IIRC), dial-up users will get the bleeding edge without too much download time. Source patches should be smaller than binary ones 🙂
    [ Please login, or register ]

    Subject: Re: apt-get -b source-dist-upgrade
    Author: Anonymous
    Date: Tuesday, 2001/11/27 – 15:51
    Am I right to assume that DanielS means dbuild in stead of sbuild? And is the package automatically build for the cpu dbuild is running on or should you specifically export some flags before compilation (or something else)?
    [ Please login, or register ]

     

    Subject: Re: apt-get -b source-dist-upgrade
    Author: ajk
    Date: Tuesday, 2001/11/27 – 17:22

    Am I right to assume that DanielS means dbuild in stead of sbuild?

    No. Dbuild is obsolete; sbuild is part of buildd, which is the system that the autobuilders use, but it’s not packaged. Look here for instructions.

    [ Please login, or register ]

    Subject: it’s not that much faster
    Author: kfs27
    Date: Tuesday, 2001/11/27 – 15:08
    i can see compiling some of the huge bloatware packages so they don’t lag as much…but the speed difference optimized is practically nothing…can’t you all stop complaining about optimized code…
    [ Please login, or register ]

     

    Subject: Re: it’s not that much faster
    Author: Anonymous
    Date: Thursday, 2001/11/29 – 16:12
    No, but its some. And I want that, even if
    its only 1 percent or 2.
    And, many packages i’ve compiled easily
    runs 30-40% faster than the prebuilt ones.
    [ Please login, or register ]

     

    Subject: Re: it’s not that much faster
    Author: Anonymous
    Date: Tuesday, 2001/11/27 – 15:23
    I agree with your “blanket statement”. I spent forever compiling my entire system once and only noticed a differance when running my window manager. Mozilla wasn’t really noticeably faster either.
    If I had my pick of things I’d like optimized it’d be X, windowManager, graphical web browser, and kernel. IME anything else is really a waste of time.
    [ Please login, or register ]

     

    Subject: Re: it’s not that much faster
    Author: Anonymous
    Date: Wednesday, 2001/11/28 – 04:09
    Exactly, just put some thought into the things you compile. If you want lots of general speedups, just recompile libraries instead of applications. Libraries that lots of things depend on and anything that runs in tight loops are all you need.

    Stuff like Mozilla and Nautilus probably bottleneck more on disk and memory bandwidth than CPU speed anyway (perhaps ‘gcc-3.0 -Os’ might speed them up?).

    The only things I build for myself are SDL, xmame/xmess, mplayer, and libcss. I suppose I could grow a pair and do libc and X for a sizeable speed gain, but having those two wigging out on me would kinda suck.

    [ Please login, or register ]

     

    Subject: Re: it’s not that much faster
    Author: Anonymous
    Date: Wednesday, 2001/11/28 – 20:30
    Stuff like Mozilla and Nautilus probably bottleneck more on disk and memory bandwidth than CPU speed anyway

    Not to mention the kernel. Memory-intensive apps like those were taking a big hit with bad segmentation problems in the Linux kernel memory allocator. It’s been fixed now, but goes to show how many factors there are in making a big app work efficiently.

    -l

    [ Please login, or register ]

     

    Subject: Re: it’s not that much faster
    Author: Anonymous
    Date: Tuesday, 2001/11/27 – 15:32
    mplayer worked a lot faster when i compiled it with gcc-3.0 instead of gcc-2.95… so what if i compare 386 vs athlon code? I think the entire system will feel like with +30% more of clock frequency
    [ Please login, or register ]

     

    Subject: Re: it’s not that much faster
    Author: Anonymous
    Date: Wednesday, 2001/11/28 – 16:50
    Hmm, I did the same benchmark on mplayer two month ago, and I only noticed a slight speed improvement with gcc-3.0.2-pre.
    [ Please login, or register ]

     

    Subject: Re: it’s not that much faster
    Author: Anonymous
    Date: Wednesday, 2001/11/28 – 02:26
    You must be good if you can tell the clock frequency that a program seems to be running at.

    I think you mean a 30% speed gain, but i really doubt you would get that, even from a different compiler version.

    [ Please login, or register ]

     

    Subject: Re: it’s not that much faster
    Author: Anonymous
    Date: Tuesday, 2001/11/27 – 22:24
    Or the 5% that’s actually more probable. I doubt you’ll see 30% gains.
    [ Please login, or register ]

     

    Subject: Re: it’s not that much faster
    Author: Anonymous
    Date: Tuesday, 2001/11/27 – 15:17
    Sorry, you can’t make blanket statements like that; sometimes optimization makes a huge difference, sometimes it doesn’t
    [ Please login, or register ]

     

    Subject: no, he’s right
    Author: Crag
    Date: Tuesday, 2001/11/27 – 20:43
    Unless you’re doing scientific computing on a cluster, or ray-tracing, or something else time sensitive, you probably won’t notice the difference. Anyone who does want to tinker with their machine that intimately should probably look at *BSD, where they have ‘make world’ and such.

    Kids these days don’t know how good they have it.

    [ Please login, or register ]

     

    Subject: Re: no, he’s right
    Author: Anonymous
    Date: Friday, 2001/11/30 – 15:41
    Scientific computing is exactly what I do and I find it a pain having to recompile lots of packages everytime they get upgraded in the archive. And its not a 386 v. 686 issue; that doesn’t make a huge difference. Its things like function inlining and certian memory bandwidth optimizations that for some libraries can make a huge difference.
    [ Please login, or register ]

     

    Subject: Re: no, he’s right
    Author: Anonymous
    Date: Wednesday, 2001/11/28 – 20:26
    Eh, I’ve heard that pentium optimized tar is up to 40% faster when not bottlenecked at the disk or RAM.

    -l

    [ Please login, or register ]

     

    Subject: Try it yourself, then
    Author: Crag
    Date: Thursday, 2001/11/29 – 00:52
    a) good luck finding a machine not bottlenecked at the disk or ram
    b) how much time do you spend waiting for tar?
    c) tar, or tar+gz or tar+bz2 or what?
    d) show me the data, that ‘40%’ sounds like instant information
    e) as I said before, if you care that much about speed you probably know how to find out what your bottlneck is and address it. The ‘pentium-builder’ package is probably of interest, as well as the sbuild programs mentioned elsewhere. However, it’s likely to be easier/cheaper (when including time spent in cost) to simply upgrade.
    f) Even if EVERYTHING is 40% faster at the CPU when compiled for Pentium or 686, that’s still only a 40% improvement system-wide (what took 100 seconds now takes 60). If only tar is improved by 40% and everthing else is improved by 5%, it’s probably not worth the trouble.
    [ Please login, or register ]

    Subject: Errr…
    Author: Anonymous
    Date: Tuesday, 2001/11/27 – 14:49
    Why run x86 at all? There are so much better architechures out there (Alpha alpha yeah yeah!)
    [ Please login, or register ]

     

    Subject: Re: Errr…
    Author: Anonymous
    Date: Tuesday, 2001/11/27 – 15:11
    Price does come into play as well. I can’t afford an Alpha, nor can I build one from scratch.
    [ Please login, or register ]

     

    Subject: Re: Errr…
    Author: Anonymous
    Date: Tuesday, 2001/11/27 – 14:59
    Sure. But i think this idea is good, with ANY architechture, not only x86
    [ Please login, or register ]

    Search articles



    Category
    ·News (319)
    ·Features (5)
    ·Site News (14)
    ·HOWTOs (57)
    ·Tips (17)
    ·Opinion (24)
    ·Q & A (24)
    ·Sponsorship (1)
    ·Press Releases (2)

    Log in
    Username:

    Password:

    Remember me

    » Register
    » New password

    Debian Security Announcements
    DSA-652 unarj
    DSA-651 squid
    DSA-650 sword
    DSA-649 xtrlock
    DSA-648 xpdf
    DSA-647 mysql
    DSA-646 imagemagick
    DSA-645 cupsys
    DSA-643 queue
    DSA-644 chbg

    Planet Debian
    Grzegorz B. Prokopski: 20 Jan 2005
    Kai Hendry: Uploading images
    Adam Kessel: Spammed By The Marines
    Norbert Tretkowski: Security updates for mysql-dfsg and mysql-dfsg-4.1 backports
    Norbert Tretkowski: Security updates for tetex-bin and xpdf backports
    David Nusinow: Inching Towards Epiar In Debian
    Erich Schubert: Arrived at Berkeley
    Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho: Is weirdo a kind of hairdo?
    Hanna Wallach: spectacular
    Benjamin Drieu: Yum sucks. Badly.

    Latest poll: How often would you like to see a Debian release?
    3 months
    5%
       
    6 months
    18%
       
    9 months
    10%
       
    1 year
    46%
     
    1.5 years
    12%
       
    2 years
    6%
       
    3 years
    3%
       

    Total votes: 615
    10 comments · older polls

    home · archives · news feeds · about · polls · search · sections · user account

    Powered by the amazing Drupal

    Debian Planet is not officially related to the Debian Project.
    Debian and the Debian logo are trademarks of Software in the Public Interest, Inc.