Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 13:26:02 -0500 From: Mark Linimon <linimon@lonesome.com> To: Oliver Eikemeier <eikemeier@fillmore-labs.com> Cc: Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> Subject: Re: incremental ports/INDEX builder Message-ID: <200406221326.02629.linimon@lonesome.com> In-Reply-To: <40D8341C.5080502@fillmore-labs.com> References: <40D8341C.5080502@fillmore-labs.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Besides, you have to feed the list of updated files to some script > to update the depedency database, which won't work with a pure > `make -V' solution. I don't use the dependency information in portsmon. > The database has more information, like that 149 ports depend on > x11/kde3/Makefile.kde, but if you don't want to know then simply > don't ask. You don't understand the question that I need to ask. The question I need to ask is "for newly modified port Makefile X, show me the list of ports that its modification might affect". Therefore I need a mapping, and for performance reasons it needs to be the most minimal mapping possible. Your solution adds 149 ports to the map that (by inspection) I can assert that I don't need in the map. In fact, the Makefile-based solution (plus patching 40 degenerate ports) will save me from having at least 250 ports in that map that your solution would add. (I know this because I have, myself, viewed these ports' Makefiles). In each of these cases there is a .include of some kind of common logic which doesn't affect the "interesting" variables. So, there is no meaning to "don't ask". I run a make -V when a ports' Makefile changes in CVS. (Well, actually, I run a special make target when M* changes, but no matter). > Tell me some names, and I will tell you what my script delivers. You > still owe me a sample where my script is wrong. You have asked this many times. I have given you the explanation that your script provides a strict superset of what I want. It is not "wrong", it is "too much". I am sorry that you will not accept my explanation that it is due to performance reasons that I wish to have the minimal set. I also do not understand enough about your script to assess its performance impact, nor am I likely to without many hours of refactoring out only what I need and testing and retesting (and probably learning Perl in the process). I simply don't have that kind of time at the moment, as evidenced by an overflowing freebsd.todo mbox, which is mostly full of things I've already told someone else I will do. mcl
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200406221326.02629.linimon>