Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2011 16:09:34 +0200 From: Michel Talon <talon@lpthe.jussieu.fr> To: Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org>, freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: UPDATING 20110730 Message-ID: <201108011609.34885.talon@lpthe.jussieu.fr> In-Reply-To: <4E367999.8000906@FreeBSD.org> References: <20110801085135.GA45113@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <4E367999.8000906@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Le Monday 01 August 2011, Doug wrote: > > A lot of people say that, but I'll stack it up against just about any > interpreted language. Some of my routines are actually faster than the > equivalents in pkg_info (which is why I use them). > Yes, i have seen that portmaster is quite fast. I was meaning that shell scripting is not the clearest tool to program complex stuff, but of course this is dependant on each person. As for the pkg* stuff they are written in C, but this is irrelevant enough if they do a lot of IO, or use poorly performing algos. I remember that Marc Espie said that, after having rewritten the OpenBSD equivalents in perl, they were both clearer and more powerful, and much faster. The slowness gripe i have is about portupgrade. This is particularly obvious when running portupgrade -PP, which may take hours to upgrade a machine without spending any time in compilation. As far as i have understood the pkg* tools are presently being rewritten by a FreeBSD team, i hope the new tools will be much better. This being said if an upgrade tool needs to compute (partially) the INDEX, most of the time is spent in running make -V <variables> in each port, because make has to read and interpret enormous files. I don't see any way to cut on that, or one should need to develop a special purpose version of make to evaluate these variables, perhaps which should keep persistent computations between ports (but this is dangerous).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201108011609.34885.talon>