From Newsgroup: muc.lists.freebsd.stable

Prior numbers were based on just (nearly?) from scratch builds of the port-packages. This illustrates also with much smaller overall builds.


Examples from official ampere4/5 builder records:

Built+Failed for the below:
ampere4 143arm64 1475+107 vs. 35759+111
ampere5 150arm64 1476+130 vs. 35748+127

ampere4 143arm64 qt6-webengine-6.10.1_2 20:10:22 vs. 27:06:38
ampere5 150arm64 qt6-webengine-6.10.1_2 29:54:49 vs. 41:25:10
approx. ratio (ampere5/ampere4) 1.48 vs. 1.53

So the shorter times are from much smaller incremental builds
and the larger times are from (near?) from-scratch builds.

ampere4 and ampere5 are reportedly nearly identical systems --so not
expected to have large performance ratios if the same work is being done.


Note: Various other long build time port packages do not have such large ratios.
--
===
Mark Millard
marklmi at yahoo.com



--
Posted automagically by a mail2news gateway at muc.de e.V.
Please direct questions, flames, donations, etc. to news-admin@muc.de
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2