Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
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>