From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Dec 13 18:52:02 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 66B4F16A418; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 18:52:01 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78DBC13C448; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 18:52:00 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wonkity.com (8.14.1/8.14.1) with ESMTP id lBDIHY6o006220; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:17:34 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost) by wonkity.com (8.14.1/8.14.1/Submit) with ESMTP id lBDIHY0E006217; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:17:34 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:17:34 -0700 (MST) From: Warren Block To: Steven Kreuzer In-Reply-To: <0F330142-A3CA-4E6E-84BD-FDE55A8E3AEE@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20071213111050.O6078@wonkity.com> References: <475F7390.9090509@gmail.com> <1022BEDA-8641-4686-AB1A-3FE2D688F47F@FreeBSD.org> <475FAC1F.1010401@gmail.com> <19341C6C-BF3A-4DFD-B8DF-87F4E92B0335@FreeBSD.org> <0F330142-A3CA-4E6E-84BD-FDE55A8E3AEE@yahoo.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-3.0 (wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Thu, 13 Dec 2007 11:17:34 -0700 (MST) Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org, Ade Lovett Subject: Re: Limitations of Ports System X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 18:52:02 -0000 On Thu, 13 Dec 2007, Steven Kreuzer wrote: > This thread was called "results of ports re-engineering survey" but I figured > I would start a new thread. Rightly so. > On Dec 12, 2007, at 6:45 AM, Ade Lovett wrote: >> >> We *know* it can be done better. We *know* the scaling limits of the >> current system, and most of us are completely amazed it even still works. >> >> If y'all want to make a difference, concepts and ideas we have plenty of. >> Code talks. > > Out of curiosity, are any of these shortcomings documented anywhere? I have > been using ports on my home machine for a long time and I've never > had any problems with it. I assume the issues come into play when you work > with multiple systems you are trying to keep in sync, etc. > > I would be interested in reading about some of the limitations people have > run into when using ports. Notable with the new modular Xorg is the speed of changes (install/deinstall/clean) when there are a lot of ports installed. Before modular xorg, 400 ports installed was a lot. 700 now is not surprising. Some profiling looking for areas which could benefit from speed optimization would be useful. That may have already been done but not publicized. -Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota USA