From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 26 11:08:32 2012 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 514AE1065670 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:08:32 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mva@FreeBSD.org) Received: from smtprelay03.ispgateway.de (smtprelay03.ispgateway.de [80.67.31.26]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 090BD8FC17 for ; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:08:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [80.67.16.111] (helo=webmailfront01.ispgateway.de) by smtprelay03.ispgateway.de with esmtpsa (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1SjTc3-0004ke-1X for freebsd-ports@freebsd.org; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:07:15 +0200 Received: from 83.246.65.147 ([83.246.65.147]) by webmail.df.eu (Horde Framework) with HTTP; Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:07:15 +0200 Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 13:07:15 +0200 Message-ID: <20120626130715.Horde.eb3fPtjz9kRP6ZfjA7sSFoA@webmail.df.eu> From: Marcus von Appen To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org 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> In-Reply-To: <4FE99200.7050107@infracaninophile.co.uk> User-Agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) H4 (5.0.19) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed; DelSp=Yes MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline X-Df-Sender: ZnJlZWJzZEBzeXNmYXVsdC5vcmc= Subject: Re: Port system "problems" 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: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 11:08:32 -0000 Matthew Seaman : > On 26/06/2012 10:31, Andrea Venturoli wrote: >> On 06/26/12 11:03, Matthew Seaman wrote: >> >>> Yes, it will multiply the number of ports. By three is about right, >>> given that most ports will only have port-docs and port-examples >>> sub-ports. However, first of all, you are assuming that the effort >>> required to install each of those sub-ports is the same as it is to >>> install a single port now. That is simply not the case. >> >> Not exactly. >> I still didn't get the details, so I might speak nonsense, however... >> >> The "effort" will be 3x processing time for portupgrade (or whatever) to >> update the package database 3 times as much as before. >> I remember the big X.org split up: going from a few ports to tens of >> them slowed down an installation/upgrade process by an order of >> magnitude (or even more). > > The X.org split up is an extreme case -- it went from three or four > ports to several hundred ports as I recall. Yes, that made a big > difference, because they were all individual ports and all of the > processing steps required to install a port had to be repeated for each > of them. > > Sub-ports should be much more efficient, as there's a lot of the work > involved in installing which is a one-time thing when installing port > plus some collection of sub-ports. How does that look like in detail? Are there any concepts on about how it is supposed to work, what the implications are, and so forth? Cheers Marcus