From owner-freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Jun 22 18:28:39 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4F4B16A4CE for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:28:39 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.soaustin.net (mail.soaustin.net [207.200.4.66]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AA33443D45 for ; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:28:39 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from linimon@lonesome.com) Received: from [192.160.235.2] (cs242743-143.austin.rr.com [24.27.43.143]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.soaustin.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E5E41430B; Tue, 22 Jun 2004 13:28:16 -0500 (CDT) From: Mark Linimon Organization: Lonesome Dove Computing Services To: Oliver Eikemeier Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 13:26:02 -0500 User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2 References: <40D8341C.5080502@fillmore-labs.com> In-Reply-To: <40D8341C.5080502@fillmore-labs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200406221326.02629.linimon@lonesome.com> cc: ports@freebsd.org cc: Kris Kennaway Subject: Re: incremental ports/INDEX builder X-BeenThere: freebsd-ports@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Porting software to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 18:28:40 -0000 > Besides, you have to feed the list of updated files to some script > to update the depedency database, which won't work with a pure > `make -V' solution. I don't use the dependency information in portsmon. > The database has more information, like that 149 ports depend on > x11/kde3/Makefile.kde, but if you don't want to know then simply > don't ask. You don't understand the question that I need to ask. The question I need to ask is "for newly modified port Makefile X, show me the list of ports that its modification might affect". Therefore I need a mapping, and for performance reasons it needs to be the most minimal mapping possible. Your solution adds 149 ports to the map that (by inspection) I can assert that I don't need in the map. In fact, the Makefile-based solution (plus patching 40 degenerate ports) will save me from having at least 250 ports in that map that your solution would add. (I know this because I have, myself, viewed these ports' Makefiles). In each of these cases there is a .include of some kind of common logic which doesn't affect the "interesting" variables. So, there is no meaning to "don't ask". I run a make -V when a ports' Makefile changes in CVS. (Well, actually, I run a special make target when M* changes, but no matter). > Tell me some names, and I will tell you what my script delivers. You > still owe me a sample where my script is wrong. You have asked this many times. I have given you the explanation that your script provides a strict superset of what I want. It is not "wrong", it is "too much". I am sorry that you will not accept my explanation that it is due to performance reasons that I wish to have the minimal set. I also do not understand enough about your script to assess its performance impact, nor am I likely to without many hours of refactoring out only what I need and testing and retesting (and probably learning Perl in the process). I simply don't have that kind of time at the moment, as evidenced by an overflowing freebsd.todo mbox, which is mostly full of things I've already told someone else I will do. mcl