Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 09:54:53 -0500 From: Lowell Gilbert <freebsd-ports-local@be-well.ilk.org> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: poudriere: reduce the number of rebuilt packages? Message-ID: <44vbkabuiq.fsf@lowell-desk.lan> In-Reply-To: <54B4CBF6.70001@FreeBSD.org> (Matthew Seaman's message of "Tue, 13 Jan 2015 07:40:38 %2B0000") References: <54A67B1A.5060007@gmx.net> <54A97748.9000401@gmx.net> <F8F2C00190BADAE1AA7CFEF8@atuin.in.mat.cc> <54B3FD78.5060404@gmx.net> <D5E3B7024DE7A949DDF12468@ogg.in.absolight.net> <54B40822.9000702@gmx.net> <23A49BD336E4EC29F493416A@ogg.in.absolight.net> <54B4372C.9040803@siol.net> <54B4CBF6.70001@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Matthew Seaman <matthew@FreeBSD.org> writes: > poudriere only knows that the dependency changed. In effect, to find > out if the package of interest would be changed because of that, it has > no other recourse than to build the package. Now, if you can come up > with some heuristics whereby you can examine the changes to a port and > determine that they will not cause significant downstream changes, and > do that reliably and faster than just rebuilding the package, then I'm > sure the poudriere developers would be eager to incorporate them. > > Failing that, poudriere re-building everything that might be affected is > the sensible choice. If I know that only the actually changed ports need to be rebuilt, I go into my jail but instead of running poudriere, I use "portmaster -g". Unfortunately, it's really easy to be wrong about "knowing" that.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?44vbkabuiq.fsf>