Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2014 13:56:29 -0800 From: Mark Peek <mp@FreeBSD.org> To: Garrett Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com>, John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com> Cc: svn-src-projects@freebsd.org, src-committers@freebsd.org, Garrett Cooper <ngie@freebsd.org>, Ian Lepore <ian@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r275601 - projects/building-blocks Message-ID: <5488C18D.2020502@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <FDAF179A-B085-4EE2-AE58-445A2B64071C@gmail.com> References: <201412080743.sB87h3j9044019@svn.freebsd.org> <1418054094.1064.147.camel@revolution.hippie.lan> <5485D8B5.90604@FreeBSD.org> <20141210210307.GX25139@funkthat.com> <FDAF179A-B085-4EE2-AE58-445A2B64071C@gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 12/10/14 1:19 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote: > On Dec 10, 2014, at 13:03, John-Mark Gurney <jmg@funkthat.com> wrote: > >> Mark Peek wrote this message on Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 08:58 -0800: >>> On 12/8/14 7:54 AM, Ian Lepore wrote: >>>> On Mon, 2014-12-08 at 07:43 +0000, Garrett Cooper wrote: >>>>> Author: ngie >>>>> Date: Mon Dec 8 07:43:02 2014 >>>>> New Revision: 275601 >>>>> URL: https://svnweb.freebsd.org/changeset/base/275601 >>>>> >>>>> Log: >>>>> - Document why usr.bin/vi needs to be built as part of bootstrap-tools >>>>> ...snip... >>>> >>>> Is there any chance someone who understands vi could evaluate what it's >>>> being used for and perhaps eliminate it? I know just enough about vi to >>>> get out of it if I accidentally get in. >>>> >>>> When I looked into this a few days ago it appears to be using it to sort >>>> the data before compiling (an optimization that problably hasn't been >>>> important to do since the 90s). Could another existing build tool such >>>> as awk do the job? >>> >>> My reading of that code agrees with yours in that it is using 'ex' to >>> prioritize some terminal entries in the termcap file. However, it is then >>> hashed into a berkeleydb via cap_mkdb which should render the initial >>> prioritization useless. Rather than rewriting it I would suggest completely >>> removing the reordering and the ex dependency. >> >> There was some dicussion about removing some of the various databases, >> and having commonly used entries at the top would help in this case.. > > I was looking at Fedora 20’s termcap just the other day, and I was surprised at the brevity in the file (only a couple entries for “xterm”). They also have it split into multiple files instead of just one file too (/usr/share/vte/termcap-0.0/xterm). Maybe this would be a good move going forward (or not…???)? > > Why should the .db files be removed? I think reducing the bloat from the files due to overestimated bucket sizes would be a good first start instead of just removing them altogether (I noticed that termcap.db has the same bloat problem services.db has). Taking a step back, which problem are we trying to solve? I see: 1. remove a vi (ex) dependency from the bootstrap-tools 2. termcap is too big and should be minimized 3. remove the use of .db files Both #2 and #3 seem to need more thought, discussion and debate before implementing them. #1 can be easily accomplished without any loss of functionality given we are currently using .db files and don't require the reorder step during the bootstrap. #2 and #3 can then be solved independent of #1 while allowing for a more streamlined bootstrap phase. Also, there is etc/termcap.small in the system should there need to be one and the larger termcap could become a port. Mark
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5488C18D.2020502>