Rebuilding Ubuntu packages from source with sccache, a compiler cache, can drastically reduce compile times, sometimes up to 90%. The author demonstrates this by building the Firefox package, achieving a 7x speedup compared to a clean build and a 2.5x speedup over using the system's build cache. This significant performance improvement is attributed to sccache's ability to effectively cache and reuse compilation results, both locally and remotely via cloud storage. This approach can be particularly beneficial for continuous integration and development workflows where frequent rebuilds are necessary.
A developer attempted to reduce the size of all npm packages by 5% by replacing all spaces with tabs in package.json files. This seemingly minor change exploited a quirk in how npm calculates package sizes, which only considers the size of tarballs and not the expanded code. The attempt failed because while the tarball size technically decreased, popular registries like npm, pnpm, and yarn unpack packages before installing them. Consequently, the space savings vanished after decompression, making the effort ultimately futile and highlighting the disconnect between reported package size and actual disk space usage. The experiment revealed that reported size improvements don't necessarily translate to real-world benefits and underscored the complexities of dependency management in the JavaScript ecosystem.
HN commenters largely praised the author's effort and ingenuity despite the ultimate failure. Several pointed out the inherent difficulties in achieving universal optimization across the vast and diverse npm ecosystem, citing varying build processes, developer priorities, and the potential for unintended consequences. Some questioned the 5% target as arbitrary and possibly insignificant in practice. Others suggested alternative approaches, like focusing on specific package types or dependencies, improving tree-shaking capabilities, or addressing the underlying issue of JavaScript's verbosity. A few comments also delved into technical details, discussing specific compression algorithms and their limitations. The author's transparency and willingness to share his learnings were widely appreciated.
Summary of Comments ( 10 )
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43406710
Hacker News users discuss various aspects of the proposed method for speeding up Ubuntu package builds. Some express skepticism, questioning the 90% claim and pointing out potential downsides like increased rebuild times after initial installation and the burden on build servers. Others suggest the solution isn't practical for diverse hardware environments and might break dependency chains. Some highlight the existing efforts within the Ubuntu community to optimize build times and suggest collaboration. A few users appreciate the idea, acknowledging the potential benefits while also recognizing the complexities and trade-offs involved in implementing such a system. The discussion also touches on the importance of reproducible builds and the challenges of maintaining package integrity.
The Hacker News post "Make Ubuntu packages 90% faster by rebuilding them" generated a significant discussion with several compelling comments exploring various facets of the proposed speed improvements.
Several commenters focused on the reproducibility aspect. One user questioned the reproducibility of builds using
ccachegiven its potential to mask underlying issues that might manifest differently on different systems. This concern stemmed from the idea that whileccachemight speed up builds, it could also hide bugs that would otherwise be caught during a clean build. Another commenter echoed this sentiment, emphasizing the importance of clean builds for verifying package integrity and catching errors. They also highlighted the inherent tension between build speed and ensuring correct and reproducible builds across diverse environments.Another thread of conversation revolved around the technical details of the proposed speed improvements. One commenter inquired about the specific changes implemented to achieve the 90% speed increase, prompting the original poster (OP) to provide more context. The discussion delved into the mechanics of
ccacheand how it leverages caching mechanisms to accelerate compilation times. This technical exchange shed light on the underlying principles enabling the performance gains.The practicality and applicability of the proposed changes were also discussed. One commenter questioned whether the changes would be upstreamed, given the potential benefits for a wider audience. This prompted a conversation about the challenges and considerations involved in integrating such changes into the broader Ubuntu ecosystem. Further discussion focused on the trade-offs between build speed and resource consumption, specifically memory usage. Some users raised concerns about the potential impact on systems with limited resources, while others argued that the benefits outweighed the drawbacks.
Finally, some comments focused on alternative approaches and existing best practices. One commenter mentioned that using
ccacheis already a common practice within the community and suggested that the observed speed improvements might not be entirely novel. Another commenter pointed out the importance of distributing build processes to further enhance performance, especially for larger projects. These comments provided valuable context and expanded the discussion beyond the specific approach presented in the original post.