Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sun, 10 Sep 2000 18:24:32 -0500
From:      Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu>
To:        Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami <asami@FreeBSD.ORG>
Cc:        Jeremy Lea <reg@FreeBSD.ORG>, Bill Fumerola <billf@chimesnet.com>, Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu>, FreeBSD Ports <ports@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject:   Re: Ports Options Paper
Message-ID:  <20000910182432.C1309@radon.gryphonsoft.com>
In-Reply-To: <vqc1yyrub1y.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>; from asami@FreeBSD.ORG on Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 03:39:05PM -0700
References:  <20000903052226.E1205@radon.gryphonsoft.com> <200009082243.e88Mh9V05579@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu> <20000910175639.F47559@jade.chc-chimes.com> <20000910152633.E39816@shale.csir.co.za> <vqc1yyrub1y.fsf@silvia.hip.berkeley.edu>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Sun, Sep 10, 2000 at 03:39:05PM -0700, Satoshi - Ports Wraith - Asami wrote:
>  * How about looping through all the combinations of WITH_* (or how ever
>  * the options are maintained) and then only building the packages for
>  * which the package name changes (via PKGNAMESUFFIX), which have the least
>  * WITH_* defined.
> 
> People, we have done that before.  Is it too much to ask that you go
> read the cvs logs of bsd.port.mk and the mailing list around October
> 1998 before suggesting something that has already been tried (and
> failed) in the past? :<

I only briefly reviewed the diffs between bsd.port.mk revs 1.293 & 1.294.
I didn't notice anything in particular that could have broken things,
but perhaps you could clarify.  All I see that we'll have to do is set
up a variable that specifies the options the package cluster will build
(and can wrap this depending on the arch), where it will then do a
package build for that particular option set.  I think the model of
looping like it did back then is not the right way.  The right way would
simply be to obtain the list of PACKAGE_BUILDING option sets in a string
and having the package building script loop between them.  And if you
modify WRKDIR to differentiate between different PKGNAMEs you'll be in
the clear, as long as dependencies are satisfied.  ``make describe'' can
be modified to output 2 fields: available option sets, and
package-building option sets.

In other words, I don't like the idea of looping being built into
bsd.port.mk.

> I know having some extra directories is an eyesore to some people, but
> that's a relatively minor problem, and we have much bigger fish to fry.

It's not just an eyesore, it results in additional unneeded inodes.
It's just too inefficient and if we stick with your philosophy, things
will be so bad by the time we reach 7,500 or 10,000 ports that we're not
going to be able to reconsider.  I want to avoid a catastrophe and make
it as efficient as possible.  I don't really care about an extra 15 or
20 lines of code or changes to the package build system, because they
can be done a lot faster than if we had to reconsider this whole issue
all over again in two or three years.  Hell, at the rate of about 100 to
150 new ports a month, we're going to pass 10,000 in less than three and
a half years.  And that's ignoring the fact that ports have grown at
more of an exponential rate than a linear one.

-- 
Will Andrews <will@physics.purdue.edu> <will@FreeBSD.org>
GCS/E/S @d- s+:+ a--- C++ UB++++$ P+ L- E--- W+ N-- !o ?K w---
O- M+ V- PS+ PE++ Y+ PGP+>+++ t++ 5 X+ R+ tv+ b++ DI+++ D+ 
G++ e>++++ h! r- y?


To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ports" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000910182432.C1309>