Thanks for the detailed experiment and the great writeup. Thanks also for creating [regression] Julia 1.11 needs 60 % more compile time than Julia 1.10 with PackageCompiler 2.2 · Issue #58201 · JuliaLang/julia · GitHub. As all steps besides the last one are unaffected by Fix hanging system image creation if multiple threads are set by PatrickHaecker · Pull Request #1042 · JuliaLang/PackageCompiler.jl · GitHub this is indeed a Julia and not a PackageCompiler.jl issue.
This means the PR should probably be integrated. @kristoffer.carlsson I Think you have the permissions to do so. Could you pleas have a look?
The long build times are also annoying for us (in the company I work for). But as the development where fast iterations are necessary works without PackageCompiler.jl they are only that: annoying, but not really expensive.
Therefore, we don’t have a business incentive to invest into making it faster. My impression from looking at the code and its history is that this is the same for others, too. @kristoffer.carlsson has done a tremendous job with creating and maintaining PackageCompiler.jl together with the community, but it does look like it was never really a focus topic for a longer time (which is only natural with so much on the plate).
The run-time of PackageCompiler.jl could be reduced by more than a factor of two by caching some of the artefacts and I am pretty sure there is even more optimization potential when going down the rabbit hole. However, I guess people will mostly focus on the --trim feature in 1.12 and beyond.
Does your company, @uwestoehr, have a relevant business incentive for fast compilations and the possibility to pay someone improving PackageCompiler.jl or --trim? I assume more hands would be more than welcome. Otherwise I think we need to be thankful for all the great work people in the community do and try to help out whenever we have some time to spare.