Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2004 18:18:10 -0700 From: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> To: Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: Second "RFC" on pkg-data idea for ports Message-ID: <20040415011809.GA58644@xor.obsecurity.org> In-Reply-To: <p0602040abca38b71031f@[128.113.24.47]> References: <p0602040cbca10a7dbe52@[128.113.24.47]> <20040413121925.GB29867@voodoo.oberon.net> <p0602041abca1e49dde40@[128.113.24.47]> <407C4035.8020609@ciam.ru> <p0602041fbca1ff481e60@[128.113.24.47]> <1081896823.772.58.camel@klotz.local> <xzp1xmq90gk.fsf@dwp.des.no> <20040414131949.3A56E43D31@mx1.FreeBSD.org> <20040414232927.GA56961@xor.obsecurity.org> <p0602040abca38b71031f@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--X1bOJ3K7DJ5YkBrT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wed, Apr 14, 2004 at 09:09:36PM -0400, Garance A Drosihn wrote: > At 4:29 PM -0700 4/14/04, Kris Kennaway wrote: > >On Wed, Apr 14, 2004, Robin Schoonover wrote: > > > > > > I use make -V a lot, and it's slow (every time you run it, make > > > has to reread all the bsd.*.mk files, such as bsd.port.mk). The > > > speed isn't much of an issue when you only do one or two ports, > > > but when you are examining the entire ports collection, you notice. > > > > >> That said, I'd still rather use a makefile based ports system anyway. > > > >Necessarily, *any* file format you choose will need to parse > >auxilliary files analogous to bsd.port.mk. There's just no getting > >around the fact that ports rely on a lot of infrastructure and > >conditional evaluation to set their variables (although it can be > >optimized relative to what we have in CVS today [1]). > > > >Note that it's intentional that a lot of things are centralized > >in bsd.port.mk where they may be easily maintained, instead of > >being set in 10000 individual makefiles. > > > >Kris > > > >[1] As a test, I recently was able to cut index build times by > >60% from 5 to a little over 2 minutes on test box with fast disks, > >by stripping out (almost) everything non-essential from the 'make > >describe' code path. >=20 > Personally, I think you can get quite a penalty by trying to > perform too much string-manipulation by using make/sh variables > combined with all kinds of fancy invocations of sed, awk, etc. > In other situations (which are totally unrelated to ports), I > have greatly improved performance of some operation by replacing > some clever shell scripts with ruby or perl. Neither of those > are speed demons compared to C, but they make a huge difference > for something which is using sed/awk for lots of low-level string > manipulation. >=20 > My hope is that if I get far enough along into the pkg-data project, > the result would be that many of the common operations would be > faster. However, right now I can only say "that is one of my > goals", and I can't prove it would actually happen... There's only a few things that execute external commands in the common code path of port makefiles. I've been working hard to remove or limit them, and as I mentioned above it's possible to optimize the current framework a lot further without too much hard work. Kris --X1bOJ3K7DJ5YkBrT Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQFAfeLRWry0BWjoQKURArboAJ4vA26+UpDPAP0Mt9rczKtudjpBAACePRsu hsf7L7hZIcN6yk7xe5g0sSQ= =o5t3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --X1bOJ3K7DJ5YkBrT--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040415011809.GA58644>