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.
This blog post details how to use Nix to manage persistent software installations on a Steam Deck, separate from the read-only SteamOS filesystem. The author leverages a separate ext4 partition formatted and mounted at /opt, where Nix stores its packages. This setup allows users to install and manage software without affecting the integrity of the core system, offering a robust and reproducible environment. The guide covers partitioning, mounting, installing Nix, configuring the system to recognize the Nix store, and provides practical examples for installing and running applications like Discord and installing desktop environments like KDE Plasma. This approach offers a significant advantage for users seeking a more flexible and powerful software management solution on their Steam Deck.
Several commenters on Hacker News expressed skepticism about the practicality of using Nix on the Steam Deck, citing complexity, limited storage space, and potential performance impacts. Some suggested alternative solutions like using Flatpak or simply managing game installations through Steam directly. Others questioned the need for persistent packages at all for gaming. However, a few commenters found the approach interesting and appreciated the author's exploration of Nix on a non-traditional platform, showcasing its flexibility. Some acknowledged the potential benefits of reproducible environments, especially for development or modding. The discussion also touched on the steep learning curve of Nix and the need for better documentation and tooling to make it more accessible.
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.