Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 21:47:59 -0800 From: Chris Pressey <cpressey@catseye.mine.nu> To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Call for feedback on a Ports-collection change Message-ID: <20040108214759.6fd85d09.cpressey@catseye.mine.nu> In-Reply-To: <p06020442bc23e2b0983e@[128.113.24.47]> References: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0401082157110.30116-100000@pancho> <p06020442bc23e2b0983e@[128.113.24.47]>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004 00:07:53 -0500 Garance A Drosihn <drosih@rpi.edu> wrote: > Inside the proposed pkg-data file, the patches can have > whatever names you want. Names that you will rarely, if ever, see in a unified diff between two pkg-data files - I think that's the most common objection so far. > Not only that, but you're killing performance when doing > operations on the entire ports tree (an operation such as > 'cvsup'). The amount of time to find-and-read ten small > files is going to be much more than to find-and-read one > larger file (particularly if that entire larger file can > still fit in a single block on the disk). So fix cvsup :) > Let me just say that I have some long-term ideas which are a bit more > ambitious, but this idea is a doable first-step towards those ideas. > I don't really think *I* can do the longer-term ideas, but I can leave > the ports-tree in a more flexible state for other projects to take > advantage of. Ah, well that's a slightly different goal than "Just reduce the inode count" isn't it? Sorry, I don't mean to sound snarky, but when you stated that goal I took it on face value... and now you go and change it :) But actually, I don't see how bundling everything up into a single (or a couple of) pkg-data file(s) leaves the ports tree in a more flexible state, either... -Chris
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040108214759.6fd85d09.cpressey>