Date: Wed, 17 Jul 2002 20:21:29 +0200 From: Szilveszter Adam <sziszi@bsd.hu> To: cvs-all@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: anholt@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: cvs commit: ports/x11/XFree86-4-clients Makefile ports/x11/XFree86-4-documentsMakefile ports/x11/XFree86-4-libraries Makefileports/x11/XFree86-4-libraries/files patch-bsdLib.rules patch-drilx11patch-xthreads patch-z01 ports/x11/XFree86-4-manuals Makefile ... Message-ID: <20020717182129.GC1068@fonix.adamsfamily.xx> In-Reply-To: <1026861780.474.14.camel@anholt.dyndns.org> References: <200207142026.g6EKQXa1003977@freefall.freebsd.org> <3D34493C.3A23D5C@FreeBSD.org> <1026861780.474.14.camel@anholt.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Jul 16, 2002 at 05:22:59PM -0600, Eric Anholt wrote: > Was it not doing this before the commit? I know some things (in the Yes it was. > One thing I plan to look at though is how to reduce, if possible, the > amount of source we are extracting and how much of X we are building > each time. One thing people have proposed is having a shared source > dir, but I'm not sure how well that would work (And how we would deal > with it in relation to things like portupgrade which like to clean after > installing the port). I have the following view of things: - At present, the X source code is extracted no less than 3 times during a full X build, which means that more than 1 gig is taken up by the source by the time we finish. This is way too much. - The libraries are built with every other major X part, which is overkill. One should insetad, at the very least, check that they are already installed and use them if so. There is no way to only partially upgrade X anyway, you either do everything or you don't. - The "make World" system in use for building X does not lend itself to such "slicing" that is at present used in the XFree86-4 port. Unless I am mistaken the reason for creating separate X libraries etc ports way back when was to support machines that were not to run an X server but still needed the libraries for X clients. (It is just ironic, that one ot the most frequently requested, cvsup, is now available in a version that does not depend on X) In other words, these "part X" ports were just a kludge, more useful for creating packages than anything else. - Yet, at some point the XFree86-4 port was converted to depending on such slave ports in all cases, with a reasoning that I did not fully agree with even at the time. IIRC there was talk of reducing duplication within the makefile infrastructure. However, at the expense of reducing duplication in the Makefiles, huge duplications were created during the build process. (Obviously, yet another change that was only tested on Ghz machines with several dozens og Gigs of disk space) So I propose that while leaving the "slave" ports alone, the "do a full X build" port should be reinstated instead of the meta-port that we have now. This would solve the problems indicated above, since eg X client ports could continue to depend on the X-libraries port, but if I say that I want a full X then it would give it to me without jumping through hoops. At least, IMHO. -- Regards: Szilveszter ADAM Szombathely Hungary To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe cvs-all" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020717182129.GC1068>