Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2015 09:38:04 +0100 (BST) From: Anton Shterenlikht <mexas@bris.ac.uk> To: henk@signature.nl, mat@FreeBSD.org, mexas@bris.ac.uk Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Running ''portmaster ghostscript9-9.06_10'' takes a lot of time Message-ID: <201508200838.t7K8c4Xj033817@mech-as222.men.bris.ac.uk> In-Reply-To: <627814EA5632799E98790639@atuin.in.mat.cc>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>From mat@freebsd.org Thu Aug 20 09:33:38 2015 > >+--On 20 ao=C3=BBt 2015 08:24:25 +0100 Anton Shterenlikht = ><mexas@bris.ac.uk> >wrote: >|> OTOH I do not want to use ghostscript ! >|=20 >| In my view ghost is a critically important port. >| I will not be able to use FreeBSD productively withouth it. >| Since I have no time or skill to contribute to >| address the slowness problem, I'm happy to put >| up with the extra hour. > >I'm not exactly sure what you're all complaining about. The port just >works fine, it does take a few seconds for make to iterate over all >options, but it's because the port has way too many options. It's not as >if you're all sitting behind your desk looking at the screen waiting for it >to finish. I think something mush have changed recently in ghostscript. If I run e.g. "portmaster -L", I get quick progress to ghostcript, where portmaster might pause for over a minute. Perhaps the number of options increased? The "extra hour" is an exaggeration on my part, and I apologise for it. I haven't built ghostscript from ports for a long time now, so cannot comment on the build times. Anton
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201508200838.t7K8c4Xj033817>