Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 11:15:13 -0700 From: Doug Barton <dougb@FreeBSD.org> To: Chris Rees <utisoft@gmail.com> Cc: ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: How useful is %%DATADIR%%, anyway? Message-ID: <4F7B3E31.9040307@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <CADLo83898nJ8fvtyapJ9Qtsbm5-dWVw1hLMXkNEUSc2Rv5rM%2BQ@mail.gmail.com> References: <CADLo839cUtxHJNqYQtvaFSp9Jjg21Hsn0U7xiOS9JuGmkhETmg@mail.gmail.com> <4F74152F.4090302@FreeBSD.org> <CADLo83898nJ8fvtyapJ9Qtsbm5-dWVw1hLMXkNEUSc2Rv5rM%2BQ@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 4/3/2012 9:15 AM, Chris Rees wrote: > On 29 March 2012 07:54, Doug Barton <dougb@freebsd.org> wrote: >> On 3/23/2012 1:14 PM, Chris Rees wrote: >>> Just as a thought, I decided to try stripping out all mentions of >>> %%DATADIR%%, %%DOCSDIR%% etc from pkg-plist, and replacing them with >>> PORTDOCS=*, PORTDATA=* in the Makefiles etc. >> >> How much time does creating the dynamic plists take for ports with >> larger numbers of docs/data, vs. the static lists; and how many ports >> would be adversely affected, if any? > > Well... running find on a directory tree doesn't take very long if all > we're doing is grabbing filenames, vs a 7% speedup of a ports csup (a > gross estimate of course, and portsnap compression will probably at > least partially eliminate this!). Worth remembering that the find is > only done on ports that are installed, rather than csup which is done > on *every* port. Sorry, wasn't asking for speculation, I was curious if you'd actually tested it. :) Doug
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4F7B3E31.9040307>