Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 16:20:55 +0100 From: RW <rwmaillists@googlemail.com> To: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Port system "problems" Message-ID: <20120626162055.0b2bdb0d@gumby.homeunix.com> In-Reply-To: <4FE9AB85.3070106@infracaninophile.co.uk> References: <4FE8E4A4.9070507@gmail.com> <20120626065732.GH41054@ithaqua.etoilebsd.net> <20120626092645.Horde.HytQbVNNcXdP6WQ1aMtjoMA@webmail.df.eu> <4FE96BA0.6040005@infracaninophile.co.uk> <4FE97008.2060501@netfence.it> <4FE97AE1.9080109@infracaninophile.co.uk> <4FE9817C.7020905@netfence.it> <4FE99200.7050107@infracaninophile.co.uk> <20120626130715.Horde.eb3fPtjz9kRP6ZfjA7sSFoA@webmail.df.eu> <4FE9AB85.3070106@infracaninophile.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:31:01 +0100 Matthew Seaman wrote: > What's different in the new scheme? > > 1 options dialogue > 2 fetch & verify distfiles > 3 extract > 4 patch > 5 configure > 6 compile > 7 install to staging directory tree *** > 8 create packages, sub-packages *** > 9 install packages and sub-packages as selected *** > Whether the extra/different work done in stages 7, 8 and 9 will negate > the savings from only doing stages 1-6 once remains to be seen. My > prediction is that mostly you'ld come out ahead, but whether you do, > and by how much will vary significantly between individual ports. It's not really worth looking at individual ports. It's the average on major updates that really matters. In my experience most of he time is spent building, and I just don't think that there all that much to be gained in the compile stage. The staging area is appealing in its own right. I'm less keen on sub-packages which are going to break update tools. I think it's very likely that only portmaster would survive.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20120626162055.0b2bdb0d>