Randy McMurchy randy at
Thu Apr 14 15:24:24 PDT 2005

Bruce Dubbs wrote these words on 04/14/05 17:08 CST:

> These values really overspecify the point and the high precision is a 
> bit misleading.  I am presenting a suggestion for discussion:
> SBUs less then 0.1 should be specified as:
>    Estimated build time: < 0.1 SBU

To me, the *lack* of precision in this example is much more misleading
that what we have now.

Let's say for the sake of roundness, binutils takes 2.5 minutes (two
and one-half). Now 0.1 SBU would be 15 seconds.

This would be way wrong for a package that compiles and installs
in one, or two seconds. To the point it would look like we didn't
know how to do elementary calculations.

> SBUs between 9.9 and 0.1 (inclusive) should be rounded to one decimal:
>    Estimated build time: 6.7 SBU
> SBUs greater than 10 should be rounded to whole numbers:
>    Estimated build time: 12 SBU

This would work, though I don't see the harm in a decimal in all
the SBU figures.

Just my thoughts.


rmlscsi: [GNU ld version 20041220] [gcc (GCC) 3.4.3]
[GNU C Library stable release version 2.3.4] [Linux 2.6.10 i686]
17:18:00 up 12 days, 16:51, 3 users, load average: 0.11, 0.08, 0.02

More information about the blfs-dev mailing list