Date: Mon, 4 Aug 2008 15:24:37 +0000 (UTC) From: Marcin Wisnicki <mwisnicki+freebsd@gmail.com> To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Portmaster questions (Was: Re: Using Portupgrade?) Message-ID: <g776vl$lj2$1@ger.gmane.org> References: <696148549.2959541217812741596.JavaMail.root@mail3.gatech.edu> <1938178730.2959681217812808135.JavaMail.root@mail3.gatech.edu> <20080804022618.GA4790@eos.sc1.parodius.com> <E1KPqR7-0002iX-0Y@daland.home> <4896904E.9070807@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, 03 Aug 2008 22:14:54 -0700, Doug Barton wrote:
> It's really not appropriate to hijack the portupgrade thread for this,
> so I'm starting a new subject. Also, please respect followups to -ports.
>
> Alex Goncharov wrote:
>> Don't remember everything of that sort but here are a couple of things
>> I would like to ask portmaster users' opinion and advice about:
>>
>> 1. I see a significant difference in the time it takes to get the same
>> information using the two tools:
>
> As I understand it, portupgrade uses the INDEX file to determine whether
> ports are up to date.
Actually I think it uses bdb "cache" of index (INDEX-7.db) and also lies
about it (says "up-to-date with port" instead of "up-to-date with index").
It's not even doing a good job at it, standard pkg_version significantly
outperforms it:
# time portversion -v | wc -l
769
real 0m15.027s
user 0m9.235s
sys 0m5.173s
# time pkg_version -Iv | wc -l
769
real 0m4.707s
user 0m3.648s
sys 0m0.798s
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?g776vl$lj2$1>