Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 19:28:25 -0800 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net> Cc: pav@FreeBSD.org, freebsd ports <freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org> Subject: Re: New /bin/sh based script to manage ports Message-ID: <43CC6459.1030506@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20060115100936.zqxdnz9a1w0g4g4g@netchild.homeip.net> References: <43BCF31F.8050900@FreeBSD.org> <1136501778.40648.17.camel@localhost> <43C38A38.1020408@FreeBSD.org> <1136893017.2410.9.camel@pav.hide.vol.cz> <43C8E446.5010603@FreeBSD.org> <20060114144016.1dc9fdd0@Magellan.Leidinger.net> <43C97BEB.3030601@FreeBSD.org> <43C99C50.6060608@FreeBSD.org> <20060115100936.zqxdnz9a1w0g4g4g@netchild.homeip.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Alexander Leidinger wrote:
> Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> wrote:
>
>> BTW, where the typical case of updating or installing a single port is
>> concerned, going from the top down is the right thing to do, since
>> dependencies will vary depending on OPTIONS chosen. However, for the
>> case of updating all the ports that are already installed, your
>> suggestion is a welcome optimization.
>
> After your explanation how portmaster operates I don't see the immediate
> benefit for the entire update procedure. You just change the order in which
> the ports are updated while still being consistent regarding the
> dependencies.
The main benefit is less nesting of portmaster processes, which I found in
testing occasionally caused problems with dialog's interaction with OPTIONS.
Other than that, you are probably right, "optimization" is not the right
word. However, I do not think that the added complexity is an overwhelming
burden, and I may end up reusing the code if I decide to try "no longer
necessary ports" detection. I can also see potential situations where doing
it in this order is a benefit to the user, particularly where a root, trunk,
or branch port update fails, an attempt to update something higher up the
tree can be delayed until it has a chance to succeed.
At the end of the day, I'm not sure it makes a LOT of difference one way or
the other, but I like the new code, so I'm going to keep it. :)
Doug
--
This .signature sanitized for your protection
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?43CC6459.1030506>