Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 10:13:16 -0700 (MST) From: Warren Block <wblock@wonkity.com> To: Michel Talon <talon@lpthe.jussieu.fr> Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD needs fresh Blood! Message-ID: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1103081008470.41038@wonkity.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1103080941340.10045@wonkity.com> References: <20110308162439.GA98584@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1103080941340.10045@wonkity.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 8 Mar 2011, Warren Block wrote: > On Tue, 8 Mar 2011, Michel Talon wrote: >> My experience is that all FreeBSD ports tools are incredibly slow, be it >> portupgrade, portmaster, even the basic tools like pkg_version. Maybe it >> would help to recognize that such observations are perhaps not unrelated to >> the original poster comments. > > I don't understand what you mean by that last sentence. OP was talking about > the difficulty of using or merging alternate ports trees, AFAIR. Sorry about > the topic drift; we can start a new thread if appropriate. And of course now I see it: the OP also mentioned the delay in rebuilding INDEX after merging ports trees. That was a problem back before the ports cluster built INDEX files for download, and there were Perl and other implementations that could rebuild a local index faster than the stock ports implementation. Can't recall exactly what they were. If still applicable, integrating those faster methods into the ports system would be a solid improvement.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?alpine.BSF.2.00.1103081008470.41038>