From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 8 17:13:17 2011 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A6121065670 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 17:13:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from wonkity.com (wonkity.com [67.158.26.137]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4A3028FC18 for ; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 17:13:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from wonkity.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by wonkity.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p28HDGIA041060; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 10:13:16 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Received: from localhost (wblock@localhost) by wonkity.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/Submit) with ESMTP id p28HDGCh041057; Tue, 8 Mar 2011 10:13:16 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from wblock@wonkity.com) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2011 10:13:16 -0700 (MST) From: Warren Block To: Michel Talon In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <20110308162439.GA98584@lpthe.jussieu.fr> User-Agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.6 (wonkity.com [127.0.0.1]); Tue, 08 Mar 2011 10:13:16 -0700 (MST) Cc: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FreeBSD needs fresh Blood! X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 08 Mar 2011 17:13:17 -0000 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.