any use to build from source?

[Parv]

in message <40D33478.3060705 at vo.lu>,
wrote Patrick Useldinger thusly...
>
> (Building from source) allows you to compile with the compiler
> options you want, you are able to optimize the binaries for your
> CPU, but: does it really matter? Are the speed improvements really
> visible?

I haven't run any benchmarks related to speed for use of software on
a personal, non-server computer.

In case when debugging support in a software would be needed,
already built software would be lacking.


> Dependencies was another argument: you compile with the correct
> headers of dependant files, well... is that really so? If you
> upgraded the dependant binaries, wouldn't you get the same effect?

I see compiling from source as a way to reduce and/or alter
dependencies, and number/size of installed files.

One drawback of using pkg_add to install a binary package is that it
requires unnecessary upgrade of dependencies.  If a package to be
installed requires x-1.2.3 but x-1.2.2_p9 is already installed AND
there will be no problem of using x-1.2.2_p9, x-1.2.3 will be
installed regardless in addition to x-1.2.2_p9, quite possibly
overwriting the files.

The packages are almost never suitable for me even though i do not
run servers other than for personal needs.


> One certain drawback of compiling from source is the compilation
> time.  Large packages like KDE or OpenOffice take ages, so you
> can't just "quickly" upgrade a whole system

That sure is true, in addition to requirement of large build space
too, jdk-1.4 requires ~1.7 GB for example.


BTW, your concerns have had been dealt w/ in past, at least once
this year.


  - Parv

--