Idea: Port Checks for Disk Space Before Compiling?

[Richard L. Hamilton]

Sounds like the best bet would be an estimate like install space + (build space * fudge factor), with a fudge factor starting at perhaps 1.5 and adjusted by subsequent experience and reports.


> On Aug 10, 2016, at 21:32, Ryan Schmidt <ryandesign at macports.org> wrote:
> 
> 
>> On Aug 10, 2016, at 8:28 PM, Lawrence Velázquez <larryv at macports.org> wrote:
>> 
>>> On Aug 10, 2016, at 9:04 PM, Ryan Schmidt <ryandesign at macports.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On Aug 10, 2016, at 5:15 PM, Mojca Miklavec <mojca at macports.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> The major problem is that there is basically no way to predict how
>>>> much space an installation of a port from source might need (one might
>>>> be able to do some heuristics based on old build logs from the
>>>> buildbot or so, but that might be quite some work for very little gain
>>>> and it won't work well for non-default variants etc).
>>> 
>>> It would be easy for the buildbot to record the size of the installed package, even if the package isn't distributable, and could submit that information to our hypothetical new web site, from which MacPorts could query it.
>> 
>> This could be helpful, but it wouldn't provide information about the *maximum* disk space required by a build, which could easily surpass the size of the final build products.
> 
> That's true. The buildbot could also record the size of the work directory before it's cleaned up. That wouldn't be 100% accurate either, since it's possible for a build to create temporary files that are cleaned up during the build, such as the gcc ports, but it would be a place to start.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> macports-users mailing list
> macports-users at lists.macosforge.org
> https://lists.macosforge.org/mailman/listinfo/macports-users
>