From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon May 28 19:55:46 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 82CFE106566B for ; Mon, 28 May 2012 19:55:46 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from amdmi3@amdmi3.ru) Received: from smtp.timeweb.ru (unknown [IPv6:2a03:6f00:1::5c35:743c]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0C05C8FC08 for ; Mon, 28 May 2012 19:55:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [213.148.20.85] (helo=hive.panopticon) by smtp.timeweb.ru with esmtpsa (TLSv1:CAMELLIA256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SZ62Z-0006tY-DK; Mon, 28 May 2012 23:55:43 +0400 Received: from hades.panopticon (hades.panopticon [192.168.0.32]) by hive.panopticon (Postfix) with ESMTP id 076C8B84D; Mon, 28 May 2012 23:55:43 +0400 (MSK) Received: by hades.panopticon (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 01414B39; Mon, 28 May 2012 23:55:42 +0400 (MSK) Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 23:55:42 +0400 From: Dmitry Marakasov To: Peter Jeremy Message-ID: <20120528195542.GB85856@hades.panopticon> References: <20120527140541.GL2987@hades.panopticon> <20120528094427.GE2675@aspire.rulingia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120528094427.GE2675@aspire.rulingia.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: OptionalObsoleteFiles.inc completeness X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 May 2012 19:55:46 -0000 * Peter Jeremy (peter@rulingia.com) wrote: > >2) Is this ok to backport the list from current to stable branches? Pro > >- it's really simple, con - it will contain files never installed with > >this (old) branch. > > Another con: "make delete-old" on -current takes about 2 orders of > magnitude longer to run than on 8.x. I would prefer to see some > effort put into speeding it up before it was backported. Is that really a reason while it is still under 4 seconds and is not usually run more often than updates (which take minutes if not hours)? -- Dmitry Marakasov . 55B5 0596 FF1E 8D84 5F56 9510 D35A 80DD F9D2 F77D amdmi3@amdmi3.ru ..: jabber: amdmi3@jabber.ru http://www.amdmi3.ru